Talk:Big Bang/Archive 23

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

New Citation

Someone should place the new book (published by Springer) Titled "Before the Big Bang" in the proper place near the end of the article. If it's not done by the time I know how, I'll do it.Julzes (talk) 07:48, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Why the italics?

why is "cannot and does not", and "describes and explains", in the second paragraph, in italics?

the emphasis is leaden, and surely redundant?

if this was a less important article, elsewhere, i wouldn't have thought twice about removing those italics, but i'd hate to tread on anyone's toes

HieronymousCrowley (talk) 17:21, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

This article = BAD

Ok, this article is everything about theory except the THEORY ITSELF. I don't want to read through history, observations, or a bunch of Hubble Telescope related stuff. So what I suggest is (1) you smarten up, (2) create a section summarizing what the Big Bang Theory is, and to (3) don't make it over-complicated because as we all know, most of the people who are able to understand such complex words do not go to Wikipedia to look this up - people who look this up are mostly kids, teenagers, and the regular dumb person.--76.239.31.103 (talk) 09:02, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

From the very first paragraph in the article:

As used by cosmologists, the term Big Bang generally refers to the idea that the universe has expanded from a primordial hot and dense initial condition at some finite time in the past, and continues to expand to this day.

That seems to be what you were looking for. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 16:58, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

There is a simpler (and much shorter) version of the article here. Its first sentence is "The Big Bang is the theory that the universe began by growing out from a very small, dense, and hot condition about 13.7 billion years ago". That is about all you can say in one sentence. However, it is easy to pick holes in a one-sentence summary like that one, because it contains some obvious over-simplifications. Gandalf61 (talk) 17:16, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

That said, the lede in this version of the article could stand to be shortened and cleaned up. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 18:47, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

This article would benefit from a "Controversy" section

As far as I (a non-scientist) am aware, there is some controversy about the big bang theory. Some claim that the theory is dependant on speculation regarding the fabric of space, such as the existence of dark matter and dark energy. A section with the heading "Controversy" could sum up the current doubt that exists within the scientific community with regards to the big bang theory. A clear presentation of scepticism can only add to the credibility of the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.208.93.198 (talk) 00:27, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't think there really is such a controversy: virtually every practising cosmologist accepts that the theory is 'true' (or rather that it's by far the best model of the universe we currently have, with no serious competitors). The problems of the nature of DM and DE, among others, are already discussed in the article; but I wouldn't say the theory is dependant on them. It pre-dates both concepts, and even the more bizarre attempts to explain DM and DE are almost invariably refinements to the Big Bang model rather than alternatives to it. Olaf Davis (talk) 19:10, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Physical meaning of time and length in the early universe?

Reading about the development of the universe in the first 10-x seconds, I wonder what definition of "second" can be used in the absence of any structure or periodic events. Can anyone explain? Same holds for the diameters assigned to the unsiverse. Length = time span times velocity of light. 85.176.27.53 (talk) 20:17, 6 September 2009 (UTC) L.K. September 6th, 2009

The diameters assigned to the universe are just for the portion that expanded to be the region we can presently see; this doen't imply any actual boundary. Regarding time and distance, the Planck length and Planck time could be considered natural units of distance and time, and do not require external events in order to be defined. I'm not sure why you'd consider time or distance to be undefined in the absence of something to measure, either; spacetime itself is still parameterized by them even with nothing in it (and there's actually quite a lot in it, in the early universe). --Christopher Thomas (talk) 21:12, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

New Change needed to stop unintentional mistakes

In the Article: Big Bang, Section: History, Line: 5 "in contrast to the static Universe model advocated by Einstein" People may be mistaken that Einstein was an advocate of the Static Model of the Universe but he in fact called it his "biggest blunder". Can this be Changed? Thank You Meste (talk) 13:11, 22 September 2009 (UTC) Meste

I have qualified the statement by adding "at that time". Einstein originally believed that any physically meaningful cosmological model must allow for a static universe, but later changed his position. Gandalf61 (talk) 13:34, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Unverifiable sources

This statement is direct from the article:

"Fred Hoyle is credited with coining the term Big Bang during a 1949 radio broadcast. It is popularly reported that Hoyle intended this to be pejorative, but Hoyle explicitly denied this and said it was just a striking image meant to emphasize the difference between the two theories for radio listeners.[8][9]"

I have examined both sources and nowhere does it validate this claim.

Those sources verify more than one claim in that grouping, but not all. I've added a third source for clarity.

 —  ^{.`</sup>^) Paine Ellsworth<sup>diss`cuss} (^^`.  05:53, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Big Bang Opening Explanation

The sentence in the first paragraph "As used by cosmologists, the term Big Bang generally refers to the idea that the universe has expanded from a primordial hot and dense initial condition at some finite time in the past, and continues to expand to this day." gives the impression that the big bang was some sort of explosion of matter similar to the detonation of a nuclear weapon or a supernova.

However, the Big Bang was NOT an explosion of matter like a nuclear bomb. These types of explosions occur within space-time. The Big Bang on the other hand was an explosion of space-time itself. This means that the Big Bang cannot be an explosion at a single point that spews out matter from there (concentrically if you will). (Source and a more detailed explanation: http://www.scienceray.com/Philosophy-of-Science/The-Big-Bang.474317).

Could one of the senior members please rephrase this explanation? I would do it, but the article is currently protected for me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dasarp.mail (talk • contribs) 21:55, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure how misleading that sentence is to someone with no a-priori ideas, but it certainly doesn't do much to correct someone who already thinks that the Big Bang was an explosion in the conventional sense. In fact, that all-to-common misconception is only treated very briefly in the FLRW metric section as far as I can see. Perhaps one of the following would be useful:

1. Adding some qualification to the lede, to give "As used by cosmologists, the term Big Bang generally refers to the idea that the universe has expanded from a primordial hot and dense initial condition at some finite time in the past, and continues to expand to this day (although not that the universe 'exploded' from a single point in the manner of a bomb)" or something similar;
2. Making a section on "Popular misconceptions" or "Popular perception of the theory" or something - there we could treat the 'explosion', 'point of origin' and 'galaxies moving faster that light' ideas. Given my experiences I'd expect a reasonable proportion of traffic to this article being from people who're wondering about some of these questions.

Anyone have any comments? Or remember the latter idea being discussed before? Olaf Davis (talk) 09:13, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Also, Dasarp.mail: you may know this already, but in case not the criterion for your being able to edit this page (and other semi-protected ones) is here. Olaf Davis (talk) 09:21, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

These attempts to clear up misconceptions about the Big Bang end up falling into misconceptions themselves. People say things like "time was created in the Big Bang", "the Big Bang was an explosion of space", "there's no outside", etc, none of which is really believed by cosmologists. In the chaotic inflationary scenario the FLRW expansion started in an already existing universe; it started at a point and expanded, time existed before it started, there was/is an outside, etc. Chaotic inflation may be wrong, but it's mainstream—as mainstream as this stuff gets, anyway. The only correct answer to "how did the universe begin?" is "we don't know, and that's not what cosmology is about." Cosmology, to the extent it's a science, extrapolates forward and backward from the present day, and the farther we get from the present the less we know. I think the big misconception here is that Big Bang cosmology is about extrapolating forward from a Big Bang event, and tells us what the Big Bang event was like, and depends for its validity on a correct understanding of the Big Bang event. The truth is that we haven't the faintest idea whether the universe even had a beginning, much less what it might have been like. All we know is that things are flying apart in a (locally) homogeneous and isotropic way. We can't even be sure they aren't flying into a preexisting void, although I don't think any of the current origin ideas implies such a thing. -- BenRG (talk) 14:00, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Ben, I love this explanation. It is so sensible, as well as accurate. I hope a slightly more formal version of this makes its way into the article, near the beginning. David spector (talk) 16:29, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure they have to fall into misconceptions themselves. The things you're talking about are mostly first-few-nanoseconds or pre-BB stuff, but misconceptions evinced by questions such as "where was the starting point of the Big Bang?" or "how can far-off galaxies be moving faster than c?" seem easy enough to answer. Of course we should avoid giving explanations which aren't actually believed by cosmologists, but there's plenty of stuff out there written by cosmologists who do believe it to correct such misconceptions. Olaf Davis (talk) 22:55, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm a first-time visiter to this page and was struck by the following sentence in the opening paragraphs: "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; rather, it describes and explains the general evolution of the universe since that instant." Firstly, I was struck by the fact that this sentence is central to defining the Big Bang, yet it's somewhat hidden in the middle of the second paragraph. But secondly, I hesitate to say that it should be put in the opening lines without some slight modification. It seems to me that the sentence is saying that the Big Bang cannot explain WHY the universe exists, since that would involve theological and philosophical questions about purpose, meaning, etc. This point--that the Big Bang theory cannot answer Leibnitz's question "Why is there something instead of nothing?"--could be made more explicitly, though, and since it is so crucial it really should be backed up with citations. (When I read it the first time I found myself thinking: Really? That's interesting. Who says so?) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.36.172.189 (talk) 02:53, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Added "hypothetical", deleted "initial conditions and subsequent" in first sentence. In the second paragraph, as pointed out above, it is stated that the initial conditions cannot be explained by the theory. Hence, this is not part of the theory, just an assumption that the theory is based on. Due to the numerous issues (listed in the article), the model can only be hypothetical and not matter-of-fact, which the first sentence seems to imply. Petersburg (talk) 14:53, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

It is the model, not a hypothetical model. Restored along w/ init cond. Vsmith (talk) 14:56, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Vsmith. "Hypothetical" is redundant, as all models are, by definition, hypothetical; this particular model happens to be a very good fit to reality (and I have no idea what a "matter-of-fact" model would be). "Initial conditions" (or, at least, "very, very early conditions") definitely are part of the model; it just takes these as given and does not attempt to explain why those initial conditions were present. Let's put the first sentence back to how it was before. Gandalf61 (talk) 15:06, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Galactic distribution image

The image in this article under the paragraph heading "Galactic Evolution and Distribution" appears incorrect in both the small and large versions. It shows the distribution of Milky Way constellations in the Milky Way and not the distribution of Galaxies in the Universe. ----

Galaxy clusters are often named after the constellation in which they lie, but this only gives an indication of which area of the sky they are in - it does not mean that they are within the Milky Way. Objects on this image, such as the Virgo cluster and the Ursa Major cluster, are indeed far beyond our galaxy. Gandalf61 (talk) 13:01, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Issue with "Features, issues and problems"

The style of the section Features, issues and problems is irritating and supercilious. It is not in accord with scientific language that states facts, not moral attitudes declaring all opponents being idiots. The style is unencyclopedic. F.ex., the second paragraph:

The core ideas of the Big Bang—the expansion, the early hot state, the formation of helium, the formation of galaxies—are derived from many independent observations including abundance of light elements, the cosmic microwave background, large scale structure and Type Ia supernovae, and can hardly be doubted as important and real features of our Universe.

Answer: just because those "facts" (or rather: strong indications) are perceived as real, they're not as strong indication of the realness of Big Bang as indicated, since the facts listed requires logics mentioned elsewhere to actually support Big Bang. F.ex. the presence of large scale structures was often mentioned as a problem for Big Bang, since it requires an older Universe or some fundamental instability that only partially but very deficiently is provided by Dark Matter.

Furthermore:

Of these features, dark energy and dark matter are considered the most secure: remaining issues, such as the cuspy halo problem and the dwarf galaxy problem of cold dark matter, are not considered to be fatal as it is anticipated that they can be solved through further refinements of the theory.

is extraordinarily weak logic. It requires citation after citation after citation. There are some indications supporting dark energy and dark matter somewhat, but there are no laboratory measurements on Earth supporting either of them. They simply are exotic physics, known only to cosmology. Such a degree of insecurity would be appropriate for the text too. Secondly:

remaining issues, such as the cuspy halo problem and the dwarf galaxy problem of cold dark matter, are not considered to be fatal as it is anticipated that they can be solved through further refinements of the theory.

signals an unfounded attitude that this will soon be solved. Actually I believe it won't. The neutrino problem will be solved, and so any standard model of physics will be replaced by a supersymmetric model, and many of the aforementioned problems will transform into new physics. The current theory won't survive, except possibly as crudely approximated special cases. Now, presenting my alternate divinations, in obvious opposition to the divinations of the text, I claim: neither the author nor me are prophets. A real scientific text shall just state the problems and point out possible solutions thereby citing some sources. ... said: Rursus (^mbork³) 20:19, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Rursus, you say "just because those "facts" (or rather: strong indications) are perceived as real, they're not as strong indication of the realness of Big Bang as indicated, since the facts listed requires logics mentioned elsewhere to actually support Big Bang." Yes, it's true the observations require interpretation to provide evidence of the BB. But those interpretations which are favourable to the theory are overwhelminlgy popular among cosmologists, and they're generally considered very strong evidence for it. I'm not quite sure what you're referring to about "some fundamental instability that only partially but very deficiently is provided by Dark Matter" - the primordial universe is generally accepted to have had Gaussian (or near-Gaussian) fluctuations which do a pretty good job of predicting current large-scale structure, and whether the matter was dark or baryonic is not directly related to their nature. The evolution of those perturbations over cosmic time requires a significant dark component to give the correct end result, but I don't see what's deficient about that.

I agree with you that "dark energy ...[is] considered [among] the most secure" is rather too confident given the state of DE; I don't agree, though, with your assessment of dark matter. DM is more than "somewhat" supported; it's the massively dominant paradigm and a large proportion of papers on the topic take its existence for granted, so strong is the evidence considered to be. It's correct that there are "no laboratory measurements on Earth" supporting it - but we can't present that as a major problem rather than a temporary inconvenience likely to be resolved, because most cosmologists do not and we're a tertiary source.

Your final paragraph too is fair enough as your own opinion, but Wikipedia must report what the authorities say. If cosmologists are generally optimistic about the Big Bang theory then we must report that they are. "A real scientific text shall just state the problems and point out possible solutions" - but Wikipedia is not a scientific text; it's an encyclopedia aimed at the general reader, and enough authors do say "the Big Bang is successful and robust" that we're justified, I believe, in echoing them. Olaf Davis (talk) 20:45, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

OK, I'm irritated by the text explaining Big Bang as a truth, like it was a religion. We should require no "truths", only "attested theories" or "best available model", we should require no "the majority likes this", because Alfred Wegener was in minority, yet correct as we know it today. Personally I think Big Bang have serious flaws (see Shortcomings of the Standard Cosmology), but if I have to choose between models, my honesty requires me to choose Big Bang as being the least flawed. The language of the article describes Big Bang like a majority religion, but I would like it to be written as an act of science, a model that in comparison to other kinds of modelling is very weak, but yet the best available, considering the measurement hardships. It won't become a very good article if it is written like it being truth, instead it would profit very much from holding forth all the "holes" and the qualified efforts to fill those "holes", which still makes it a pretty viable theory. ... said: Rursus (^mbork³) 15:07, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Rursurs was right that there was some peacock terms. I tried to edit them out. The only thing I simply removed instead of addressing in the text was the "fact" tag appended to the note regarding baryogenesis and inflation since this fact is easily found within the general reference list as described (it's simply a logical truism due to causality, actually). I provided two white paper citations to demonstrate the state-of-the-field wrt dark matter and dark energy investigations. If someone could format them properly, I'd greatly appreciate it. Thanks, Rursus for pointing out some of the problems in wording. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:06, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Not a matter of faith

The first sentence of Features, issues and problems, tells us:

While very few professional researchers now doubt the Big Bang occurred

is formulated like Big Bang was a matter of faith, where this or that supernatural power declared a "truth" and the true and only true adherents hailed the rightness of the supernatural. The real issues, religion aside, is whether Big Bang is tentatively accepted as a valid model, or not — not whether it is "true". What if there in fact is a lot of model agnostics that think: "Big Bang is posed with so many troubles, that I'll rather concentrate on observational astronomy...", and what if there are a lot of Big Bang professionals that think: "OK, I'm working with this flawed model in preparation for novel LHC to occur and solve most of our problems!".

I can understand if the text tries to educate that this is the real creation, not that Creationist pseudoscience, but the scientific philosophies is not comparable to pseudoreligious pseudoscience by far, and so we shouldn't label science as "truth" but instead of "attested theory", as opposed to "weird ad-hoc-dogma". ... said: Rursus (^mbork³) 14:34, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Please forgive me the querulant tone, the article is pretty OK according to my taste. Many improvement since last time. ... said: Rursus (^mbork³) 15:32, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I tried to fix it myself, pardon all inconveniences. ... said: Rursus (^mbork³) 15:38, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I made a little tweak to the wording to avoid special pleading. Hope it's okay. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:41, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

For what it's worth, Rursus, I can say with pretty high confidence from my own experience that the membership of those two groups you posit within cosmologists is essentially zero. Olaf Davis (talk) 17:40, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Copernican Principle

These parts of the article don't make sense to me:

That space is undergoing metric expansion is shown by direct observational evidence of the Cosmological Principle and the Copernican Principle, which together with Hubble's law have no other explanation. Astronomical redshifts are extremely isotropic and homogenous,[4] supporting the Cosmological Principle that the Universe looks the same in all directions, along with much other evidence. If the redshifts were the result of an explosion from a center distant from us, they would not be so similar in different directions.

Why would not be the redshift same in all directions when observed from some random piece of an expanding cloud of galaxies (supposing we are far enough from the edge)? Whoever wrote this apparently meant that if you select a point in space outside the center of the explosion, the redshifts will not be symmetric. That is irrelevant, though: observers move with the stars which fly away from the center of explosion, and if you take that motion into account, you get symmetric redshifts from any point.

Explosions have a direction outward in the radial direction because they have a center. A "centerless explosion" is equivalent to a metric expansion". ScienceApologist (talk) 16:47, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

You missed my point entirely, which was that an observer co-moving with the matter flying out from the explosion sees himself as the center from which everything moves away. There is no local feature which would allow differentiating between the center and other points; assuming only objects within a finite distance are visible (thus we are unable to notice that the edge of the explosion is closer in one direction than in the other), Hubble's law fits just as well with sitting on any random object which was thrown out by the explosion than with sitting in the centre. You could say that the center is defined by the observer's frame of reference and not any inherent feature of the explosion.

Also, a centerless explosion (which is pretty much what the steady-state model assumes) might be equivalent to a metric expansion in some abstract mathematical sense, but it is not the same thing physically, if we take relativistic effects into account. With metric expansion, you can observe redshifts which correspond to much higher relative speeds than the speed of light; this would not be possible when the expansion would be nothing more than matter moving around.

--Tgr (talk) 07:56, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

an observer co-moving with the matter flying out from the explosion sees himself as the center from which everything moves away --> not at the same rate in all directions if there is a center. There is a preferred direction which corresponds to the radial direction and that is the one with the highest Hubble Constant. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:21, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Assume C is the center of the explosion, O is the observer sitting on a planet flying away from the center, X is some random other planet flying away. Since the explosion follows Hubble's law, the velocities of O and X relative to C are $H_{0}{\overrightarrow {CO}}$ and $H_{0}{\overrightarrow {CX}}$, respectively. The velocity of X relative to O is then $H_{0}{\overrightarrow {CX}}-H_{0}{\overrightarrow {CO}}$ = $H_{0}{\overrightarrow {OX}}$, thus from the point of view of O there is a linear relation between distance and speed of X (which is exactly the same relation an observer would see from C). --Tgr (talk) 01:56, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Since the explosion follows Hubble's law --> An explosion that follows Hubble's Law is not a normal explosion and the "center", C, is not really a "center". ScienceApologist (talk) 16:34, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Could you please sketch out the math showing how the observations would differ? I've been lurking in this thread, and I'm having trouble seeing how observable events in the two scenarios would be distinguished in the limit of an arbitrarily distant center of the explosion (i.e. far outside the observable universe). Providing this would also go a long way towards convincing Tgr of your viewpoint (right now, you're asking him to take "no, you're wrong" on faith). --Christopher Thomas (talk) 17:34, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Take Tgr's previous example and choose another point instead of C (call it Y, for example) and redo the analysis. You get exactly the same result if Hubble's Law applies universally. Y then acts exactly the same way as C and is therefore indistinguishable from C. For that reason, Y must either "also" be the center or there must be no center at all. There's really nothing more to it than that. A "center" implies a breaking of symmetry that is impossible in a Hubble's Law arrangement. ScienceApologist (talk) 17:08, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

You get exactly the same answer, per his math above (just swap in Y instead of O; the velocity of any X relative to Y ends up being $H_{0}{\vec {YX}}$, giving you Hubble's law with Y as the new centre). The only flaw I see in Tgr's argument is that you have to ignore relativity for it to work as-written ($|H_{0}{\vec {OX}}|$ can exceed C), and it's not obvious to me that this invalidates the argument (it might be possible to construct a deformed velocity/radius relationship such that these relations hold when using the SR velocity addition/subtraction formulae). I'm not saying the argument is _correct_; just that I don't think it's been properly refuted in this thread (important, because this should be cleaned up in the article if it's causing confusion). --Christopher Thomas (talk) 18:38, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I think you just proved my point. There can only be one center (by definition). You just proved that there exists another point (Y) indistiguishable from the proposed center (C). Ergo, there is no center. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:46, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

You miss my point (and apparently Tgr's point, if I understand it correctly): that an "explosion" (expansion of some cloud of pointlike objects through space) is observationally indistinguishable from the metric expansion of space, provided that the edge of the cloud of expanding objects is outside the observation horizon. The appearance of Hubble's law recession does not itself demonstrate that the metric expansion exists, at least without arguments beyond those sketched above. Do you see what I'm getting at, here? --Christopher Thomas (talk) 21:38, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

If the edge is unobservable then the center is unobservable and the explosion is indistinguishable from a metric expansion. Therefore it is a metric expansion. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:35, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure the therefore it is a metric expansion doesn't follow. At minimum, you could construct an "explosion" scenario where there were the edge would eventually come into view. In an explosion scenario, you'd also be able to prove that an event horizon forms (roughly at the edge of the observable universe, if our density estimates are correct), whereas in a metric expansion scenario you have an observation horizon, but no event horizon in the black hole sense of the term. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 16:47, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

An edge eventually coming into view is a meaningless thought-experiment in regards to the base assumptions we are considering here. The Copernican and Cosmological Principles are only applied to the universe in a space-like slice of spacetime (and that's why, for example, we avoid the perfect cosmological principle). Event horizons and future light cones are speculative based on universality. They do not affect cosmological models based on testable observational assumptions. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:55, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

(deindent) I'm having a lot of trouble understanding this subthread, largely because I can't understand half the stuff that you (ScienceApologist) say. I'm not even sure if you disagree with Christopher Thomas or if this whole thread is just the result of a miscommunication.

All experimental evidence is consistent with (for example) our being somewhere inside a very large spherical homogeneous ball of matter expanding into an infinite Schwarzschild vacuum. That setup is consistent with GR and it would look homogeneous and isotropic from any point not too close to the edge. It has a geometric center which needn't coincide with our location. One can argue against this on Occam's razor grounds, but it's not directly ruled out by the evidence. I dislike the term "metric expansion" because it suggests that the physics of the expansion of the universe is fundamentally different from the physics of an ordinary explosion, which is not the case, and also because I don't understand what it's supposed to be saying about the nature of the world. The FLRW metric, ds² = dt² − a(t)²dΣ², does "undergo metric expansion" in the sense that equal coordinate distances represent larger metric distances at later coordinate times, but that's merely a statement about the coordinates involved and not about the physical world. -- BenRG (talk) 18:35, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with all you are saying, BenRG. I don't see why this is in contradiction to the article text. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:29, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

BenRG: My understanding was that our experimental evidence was not consistent with our being inside a large spherical homogeneous ball of expanding matter, because any such model of the universe would run into the same problem as static universe models: no matter what density you assume, any sufficiently large volume ends up inside an event horizon, contradicting the assumptions made (i.e., that that volume is not undergoing collapse to a singularity). In virtually all descriptions of the big bang model that I've seen, metric expansion (or alternatively, a spacetime upon which drawing a coordinate system like that makes sense) is presented as being fundamentally different from an explosion through "non-expanding" space. This is consistent with the lede at metric expansion of space, among other places.

If I'm wrong, fine, but I'm getting inconsistent messages here. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 21:38, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

An event horizon outside our particle horizon does not affect the observations inside the particle horizon. You can have both metric expansion observed and an "exterior" event horizon and be perfectly consistent. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:26, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Measurements of the effects of the cosmic microwave background radiation on the dynamics of distant astrophysical systems in 2000 proved the Copernican Principle, that the Earth is not in a central position, on a cosmological scale.[notes 5] Radiation from the Big Bang was demonstrably warmer at earlier times throughout the Universe. Uniform cooling of the cosmic microwave background over billions of years is explainable only if the Universe is experiencing a metric expansion, and excludes the possibility that we are near the unique center of an explosion.

How does that have anything to do with the Copernican Principle? Sure, the cooling of the CMB (or the CMB itself in the first place) cannot be explained by an explosion, but that's irrespective of any symmetry considerations. Supposing we are in the center of an explosion does not give us any extra explaining power over supposing we are at some random point of an explosion. --Tgr (talk) 02:01, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

The Copernican Principle demands that every observer on a space-like slice of spacetime see the same cosmologically relevant phenomenon. However, it is not possible to actually observe what a distant observer sees since we are stuck in a very small part of spacetime. These observations enable us to "see" what a distant cosmologist sees and confirm the fact that there is nothing preferred about either observation. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:47, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't see how that is relevant to what I said. Maybe the CMB cooling differentiates between Copernican and non-Copernican models of the Big Bang, and it certainly differentiates between Big Bang and the explosion model (which has nothing to do with the Copernican principle since the explosion model is not necessarily non-Copernican), but it makes no sense to say that it differentiates between non-Copernican (sitting in the center) and non-Copernican (sitting in some random point) versions of the explosion model, since that model cannot explain the CMB in the first place. Thus, the claim of the article the the CMB cooling "excludes the possibility that we are near the unique center of an explosion" is wrong. --Tgr (talk) 07:56, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

The source clearly indicates that the CMB has to be universal as opposed to local. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:21, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it's technically wrong, but it is misleading: the CMB does exclude our being near the 'unique centre' of an explosion because it excludes any type of explosion. However, phrasing it the current way does make it sound like it rules that out while leaving in the 'edge of an explosion' model, which as you say it doesn't, so I agree the wording should be changed. Olaf Davis (talk) 10:37, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I think this section of the article should be rewritten, because there really is no difference between "metric expansion" and a sufficiently symmetric explosion. In the zero-density case, when spacetime is flat, the FLRW metric is $ds^{2}=d\tau ^{2}-\tau ^{2}\left({\frac {d\rho ^{2}}{1+\rho ^{2}}}+\rho ^{2}d\Omega ^{2}\right)$, which is literally just Minkowski space in different coordinates: substitute $\tau ={\sqrt {t^{2}-r^{2}}}$ and $\rho =r/{\sqrt {t^{2}-r^{2}}}$ and you get $ds^{2}=dt^{2}-dr^{2}-r^{2}d\Omega ^{2}\!$. The "metric expansion" in FLRW coordinates is recessional velocity in Minkowski coordinates, the cosmological redshift in FLRW coordinates is special relativistic redshift in Minkowski coordinates, the larger-than-c comoving speeds in FLRW coordinates are lower-than-c special relativistic speeds in Minkowski coordinates, and so on. When you introduce enough matter that spacetime is noticeably curved then it gets harder to see what's going on, but nothing has fundamentally changed. The big bang was an explosion; it was far more uniform than any other explosion in nature, but that's only a difference of degree, not of kind. The article repeatedly assumes that the astronomical data is only consistent with an explosion if we're at the center of it, which as Tgr points out isn't true: all that you can measure is relative distances and speeds, and those look the same whether or not you're at the center. -- BenRG (talk) 13:36, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

The center of the explosion argument is fine for the null hypothesis associated with the Copernican Principle. As a general rule, all one needs to do to test the Copernican Principle is show that there is nothing preferred about our frame of reference. One could assume that Hubble's Law provided that we inhabit a preferred reference frame but the observations of higher temperature CMB at distant locations is evidence contrary to this assertion. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:21, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

The reason we refer to the Copernican Principle is that, strictly, it is necessary to assume it to derive anything from cosmological observations. As noted elsewhere in the article, we can observe isotropy but we need CP to get to homogeneity. Specifically, we directly observe systematic changes with distance (e.g. lower clustering amplitude, higher CMB temperature, more quasars & star formation at high redshift than nearby). By assuming CP we infer that these are actually due to change with time rather than to our being located at the centre of the cosmic spheres. Of course, modern cosmology has been able to predict some of these changes (notable the CMB temperature) ahead of discovery, and such confirmed instances provide supporting evidence for the whole structure of cosmological theory, including the CP on which it rests, but (despite ESO press release) it is not a test of the CP specifically; for that we would also need direct evidence that the T_CMB was higher in the past in our local region of the universe, and of course this would only confirm one small aspect of what the CP asserts.

Furthermore, the first of these two paras is almost meaningless. In what sense are observed redshifts supposed to be "isotropic and homogeneous"? Strictly speaking they definitely are not, as this would mean that redshift (or at least statistical distribution of redshifts) was independent of distance! One could make a case that the Hubble expansion is isotropic (but not using Hubble's original data, as cited!), but this says nothing about homogeneity which is the crux for the CP. One could claim that the 3-D distribution of galaxies revealed by redshift surveys is homogeneous, but this claim is seriously disputed in the published literature: the large-scale structure extends to scales up to at least 100 Mpc, and some argue that fractal structure continues to arbitrarily large scales (in which case the CP is wrong as are all Friedman-based universe models).

By the way, these two paras were inserted (after the last FA review) by banned sockpuppet user:Publicola, if that's relevant to anything. PaddyLeahy (talk) 19:13, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Please, take a stab at rewriting it. I don't know if we really need those paragraphs at all, and will not object to their removal. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:11, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

temperature of around space before bigbang

It is stated in the article that the Universe has originated from a primordial hot and dense initial condition at some finite time.

I can’t comprehend how the universe cooled down. Was the cold medium (temperature) present around before big bang?68.147.38.24 (talk) 04:31, 8 November 2009 (UTC) khattak

This talk page is for improvements to the article; not for tutorials on cosmology. But for what it is worth, space itself doesn't actually have a temperature, and the article does not speak of a temperature for space. The temperature of the background radiation that fills the universe is falling as the universe expands. This is described in the article. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 04:39, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

The temperature given is the average temperature of the material within the universe. As the universe is a self-contained system, changing the volume of the universe (and density of the material within it) changes the average temperature (this is an "adiabatic expansion", described at adiabatic process#Ideal gas (reversible case only).

The early universe was filled with a large number of photons and with a plasma of particles and antiparticles that were continually created and destroyed (the temperature being high enough for pair production. As it expanded, it cooled, with a number of effects occurring (as described in the article).

If parts of the article are unclear, these can be improved. Were there any specific sentences or paragraphs that you felt should be changed to better describe the material? --Christopher Thomas (talk) 04:54, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

"Evidence?!?!"

In the section about religion, it states that theologians "reject or ignore the evidence of the Big Bang". Well, how can they reject "evidence" that doesn't exist? Was anyone around to witness it? If anyone has please step forward. This article should present the Big Bang THEORY as what it is; a THEORY. --The Great Fizack (talk) 23:11, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

You have quoted that phrase out of context - the full sentence is "Some [religious groups] accept the scientific evidence at face value, while others seek to reconcile the Big Bang with their religious tenets, and others completely reject or ignore the evidence for the Big Bang". Seems like a balanced statement to me. As the first sentence of the article says: "The Big Bang is the cosmological model of the initial conditions and subsequent development of the Universe that is supported by the most comprehensive and accurate explanations from current scientific evidence and observation". Model is just another word for theory. You are quite right to say that scientific evidence is not abslute proof - we cannot be certain about what happened 14 billion years ago, just as we cannot be certain about anything in the external world - see Descartes demon. Gandalf61 (talk) 09:48, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Fizack, theories in science carry a lot of weight, they are not just guesses the way the term is used in popular speech. The idea that direct observation is the only way to be confident about a historical event is lunacy. Abyssal (talk) 15:12, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Fizack, it sounds like you are confusing two very different uses of the word "theory". In colloquial use, "theory" means an uncertain guess which may or may not be true. In science, that is not called a theory, it's called a hypothesis. In science, a Theory (sometimes spelled with a capital T to denote the difference) is not just a hypothesis. It is something that has been extensively tested until it's so certain that it would be almost impossible to overturn it. It's closer to a fact than to a hypothesis, though scientists rarely use the word "fact" because there's always a teensy tiny possibility that they could learn something in the future that contradicts the current understanding. In a Theory, however, that possibility is ridiculously small. Consider that gravitation is also a Theory, but there's no way anyone would say "well, it's ONLY a theory... That means that gravity might not really exist!" --Icarus ^(Hi!) 19:12, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Except that "string theory" is also called a "theory". <g,d&rVF!> ___A. di M. 17:13, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

True. But in every scientific discussion I've heard on the topic, one of the first things mentioned is that it really ought to be called the string hypothesis or the string model, since it is nowhere close to being an actual Theory right now. This appears to be an instance of the colloquial use bleeding over into a scientific context (it's understandable that this happens occasionally - scientists are human beings, after all, who grow up exposed to the colloquial meaning of as much as anyone else). String theory could be referred to as a "little t theory," but it is not a "bit T Theory." --Icarus ^(Hi!) 20:47, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Fizack, of course! Except remember the saying: "theories is the best we can get". ... said: Rursus (^mbork³) 15:17, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Related question: Why is there no page similar to Talk:Evolution/FAQ for the Big Bang? It seems that these concerns should be addressed at a centralized location.... --Eunsung (talk) 21:27, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Were there weird "atoms" around 10-13 seconds?

Around 10-13 seconds after the Big Bang, things like the bottom quark and the tauon were stable particles (surviving as long as the Universe itself). Given their larger mass and the density of particles in the universe, could they have formed atom-like composites or produced interesting astronomic structures? Wnt (talk) 07:12, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

At 10^-13 seconds ABB, you are approaching the end of the electroweak epoch and the start of the quark epoch. At this stage the average energy of particle interactions is still too high to allow quarks to combine into mesons or baryons. The universe is filled with a sea of high-energy quarks, leptons and their antiparticles, with the quarks interacting via the strong force by exchanging gluons in a quark–gluon plasma. So the short answer is no, no composite structure could have survived at this time. Gandalf61 (talk) 14:17, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for responding! But let's look into some details, if I ask the question for a point solidly within the quark epoch, perhaps 10^-9 seconds ABB. If the average energy of particle interactions is too high to allow "quarks" to combine into "mesons or baryons", does that definitely mean that it is too high for bottom, charmed, and strange quarks to combine into exotic mesons or baryons? For example quark stars apparently can contain strange matter even though they consist of a quark-gluon plasma where regular quarks are concerned.

I tried to look into this directly for a bit, but it is tough going for the uninitiated. Apparently bottom quarks have energy around 5 GeV, yet mesons with bottom-antibottom can have energies 26 keV to 110 MeV (????) [1] In the unlikely instance that I'm not misinterpreting this, that would seem to mean that almost the entire 5 GeV mass of a bottom quark can be released as energy when it binds another quark, and would need to be returned in random collisions to recreate it. Since it has a mass 3000 times that of an up quark, I'd expect it to need 3000 times hotter a temperature and to become stable in mesons/baryons roughly 3000 times sooner than regular quarks i.e. at 10^-9 seconds ABB. I'm sure there are fallacies in what I just said, but it might be enlightening to see them corrected. ;) Wnt (talk) 10:54, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

A singularity?

The article refers to the big bang as a singularity but it's not entirely clear that there is a consensus on this issue:

"So in the end our work became generally accepted and nowadays nearly everyone assumes that the universe started with a big bang singularity. It is perhaps ironic that, having changed my mind, I am now trying to convince other physicists that there was in fact no singularity at the beginning of the universe -- as we shall see later, it can disappear once quantum effects are taken into account." - Hawking, A Brief History of Time p. 50 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Craig Pemberton (talk • contribs)

This is mostly a case of the answer depending on what model we choose to apply when extrapolating back to the instant of the Big Bang. Using general relativity alone, it produces a gravitational singularity (using the same mathematical proof that shows that a black hole collapses to a gravitational singularity). However, most scientists expect that a theory of quantum gravity would produce different predictions (for both black holes and the Big Bang). We have no satisfactory theory of quantum gravity (or of unification of the fundamental forces, which is also expected to happen at those temperatures). Instead, different people have tried to use various different approximations to estimate how the system in question (universe or black hole, depending on who's doing it) would behave. Whether any of these answers is correct is debatable (and indeed, is being vigorously debated within the scientific community). There is general agreement, if I understand correctly, that you'd at least be starting with a plasma at or near the Planck temperature and with correspondingly high density, in the case of the early universe.

Does this address your question? --Christopher Thomas (talk) 04:32, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Is the "singularity" real or only mathematical? We know that there are only 14 million years' worth of vibrations of a cesium atom possible in our past, but the point that makes is only that if you go back far enough in time, cesium atoms become increasingly unwieldy, until another physics takes over. We know that all sorts of cosmic things "happened" in miniscule fractions of a second at the beginning by this definition of time, but we could just as easily use the logarithm of time, or perhaps some other unit of spacetime defined by the assumption that a photon of light remains always the same color and always traverses the same number of wavelengths in a unit time (in which case space is exactly?? the same size at any time). Can we rule out that vast galactic empires played out in attoseconds of quark-gluon plasma, or that once 10^100 years is a tick of the clock our neutrinos and WIMPs will turn out to form interesting new patterns of life? Wnt (talk) 16:23, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Matter at relativistic speeds

The article says that "Temperatures were so high that the random motions of particles were at relativistic speeds, and particle–antiparticle pairs of all kinds were being continuously created and destroyed in collisions." But isn't the first part true for most of the matter in the universe today, with neutrinos and dark matter moving so quickly they can only barely (if at all) stick to one galaxy? I'm not sure where those things stand regarding the antiparticle pairs. Wnt (talk) 16:03, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

The vast majority of dark matter is believed to be cold dark matter (CDM), with the 'cold' meaning that its motion is non-relativistic. It tends to stay bound to dark matter 'haloes' which are permanent structures often containing one or more galaxies, with a relatively small interchange of mass between haloes. Relativistic DM is called hot dark matter. You're right that massive neutrinos would qualify and they're a prime candidate for HDM, but their density in the universe is far lower than that of CDM.

As for particle-antiparticle pairs, both neutrinos and CDM particles are thought to be extremely weakly interacting, so although they may be producing pairs (this is the mechanism through which people are searching for a direct DM detection), the interaction rate is far lower than it would have been for relativistic baryons. Olaf Davis (talk) 17:32, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Simple revision requested

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Since this is a theoretical model it should be noted in the first paragraph that, by definition, it is not fact and lacks certainty. Toneron2 (talk) 08:03, 12 December 2009 (UTC) In a scientific context, being theoretical and being a fact are not mutually contradictory. Similar discussions have been had here many times before - you might want to look at Icarus's first post in this section above which is a good short summary. Olaf Davis (talk) 19:09, 12 December 2009 (UTC) As the first sentence of the article says, the Big Bang is a model that is consistent with the known facts, as opposed to models that are inconsistent with the known facts, such as the Steady State theory. Gandalf61 (talk) 23:35, 12 December 2009 (UTC) Typical readers of wikipedia are not engaged in cosmological debate or versed in the nuances of the definition of theory. The intent of the request was not to further my personal knowledge - nor was it to participate in a long running debate. In the interest of quality the article should strive to accurately present the topic and not induce bias and confusion. In its present form, the text of the article could incorrectly be taken by the casual reader as certain and concrete fact which as you have stated is under debate. The text should reflect this immediately as typical readers browse the initial paragraphs - in summary - and may not consume the entire article. Toneron2 (talk) 03:18, 15 December 2009 (UTC) But whether the Big Bang happened or not isn't really under debate among experts. There are debates about details of exactly what happened, yes, but the general statement that the universe 'expanded from a primordial hot and dense initial condition at some finite time in the past' is not seriously disputed and can legitimately be called a fact. Or is that not what you meant? If not, perhaps you could propose a sentence you'd like to see added to the lede so I can better understand exactly which aspect of the BB you want to make clear is under debate. Olaf Davis (talk) 10:09, 15 December 2009 (UTC). The general statement you indicated is just that - it is not a scientific theorem or law and should not be presented as such. My intent is to present the theory in a manner in which it cannot be confused with certainty. Well at the very onset - the title of the article "Big Bang" is misleading. It evokes a sense of truth that the description following is certain fact. The title should be "The Big Bang Theory" because that is what is described; from wikipedia "a set of empirical observations". The article presents the theory as concrete, which evokes confusion because there is no theorem that states that the universe "expanded from a primordial hot and dense initial condition at some finite time in the past". This simply can not be proven by the scientific method. So that is the first revision I would suggest. That being said, directly after the first sentence, I would recommend adding the following. "It should be noted that as a model and a theory the Big Bang is not to be considered as certain truth, but as a set of very sophisticated observations resulting in one possible explanation of how the universe came to be" or something along those lines. There is really no debate here - the article is describing theory and presenting a model - not describing certain fact.Toneron2 (talk) 04:32, 16 December 2009 (UTC) I'm about to disappear from internet access for a week or so so I'm afraid I must be very brief. While your proposed addition is technically true, I think emphasising it is misleading. We could add the same to many articles - "as a model and a theory the theory of continental shift is not to be considered as certain truth, but as a set of very sophisticated observations resulting in one possible explanation of how the continents behave". In a sense neither theory is 'certain fact': it's potentially possible that either could be disproved next year. The same is true of pretty much any scientific theory. But saying so prominently in the lede gives the distinct impression that experts are in at least some doubt about the theory's veracity - which they really aren't. (Admittedly the BBT may be slightly less rock-solid that tectonic drift, but not enough that we should say prominently 'this could be wrong'. As for your statement that my sentence above 'can not be proven by the scientific method', I simply disagree. In the sense that science proves anything, as far as can see, that can be proved. Anyway I have to leave now as I said. If the article does get changed as a result of this I'd appreciate a note on my talk so I can look at the new version when I'm back. Cheers, Olaf Davis (talk) 08:59, 16 December 2009 (UTC) Just adding an additional voice of agreement with Olaf's. The distinction between "certain fact" and a "model" is only relevant in discussions in the abstract. In a more practical sense, models, like the Big Bang, that have been subject to countless bouts of attempted falsifications and remain intact are the closest thing we've got to certain fact in science. The simple fact that there are no rivals indicates a level of certainty that is essentially as good as science ever gets. To that end, we should not be adding rhetorical rejoinders just to satisfy the sensibilities of readers who would like reality to be other than what it is. ScienceApologist (talk) 13:50, 16 December 2009 (UTC) It's really not that complicated - is the Big Bang theory a theory? If so it should be called that. ScienceAplogist your bias is showing. This is the bias that does not belong in wikipedia articles. You are fishing for debate and I am not going to bite. The fact remains that this is a theory and should be identified as such. Please change the title from "Big Bang" to "The Big Bang Theory" to more accurately reflect reality. Toneron2 (talk) 05:55, 17 December 2009 (UTC) Big Bang theory already exists as a redirect to Big Bang. This is consistent with other usage on Wikipedia - gravitational theory redirects to gravitation; theory of evolution redirects to evolution; theory of general relativity redirects to general relativity. I see no reason here to make an exception to this convention. Gandalf61 (talk) 09:59, 17 December 2009 (UTC) Ah. Well I guess it will remain misleading then. It is unfortunate that wikipedia is headed down the road that many great internet concepts have taken - a slow path to uselessness. I remember when people would go to wikipedia for reliable information just as eBay for simple, affordable auctions. I hear more and more that "just because it is on wikipedia doesn't mean it is true". Well I guess it does serve the biased agendas of the particular body of editors for each article. The current transformation into another advertising portal is really unfortunate. Oh well, it was great while it lasted! Toneron2 (talk) 15:12, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Current best estimate for age of the universe?

A recent edit on Dec 14 emphasizes "measurement" for inference of the age of the universe since the Big Bang. I think this is potentially misleading.

The age itself is not a measurement; but an estimate based on best fit of parameters to measurements of supernovae, CMBR, and so on; along with some theoretical assumptions about the model (six parameter ΛCDM). Hence measurements are used; but the age itself really is an estimate, given by a best fit of parameters.

Furthermore, the value given (13.7 Gy) is already out of date, I think, given improved measurements of the Hubble constant by Reiss et al (2009) A Redetermination of the Hubble Constant with the Hubble Space Telescope from a Differential Distance Ladder, arXiv:0905.0695v1. The current reference in the article is to Komatsu et al (2008) Five-Year Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) Observations: Cosmological Interpretation arXiv:0803.0547v2, which proposes a significantly smaller Hubble constant. Note that the new value for H₀ is based more directly on measurement, whereas H₀ from Komatsu et al is a secondary inference from other parameters. Although age of the universe has a lot of popular interest, it isn't actually one of the significant parameters of most interest to cosmologists, so it is often not given explicitly as part of recent results.

With more recent measurements, I think 13.2 Gy is probably closer; except that this number is often not given explicitly. I'll hunt around; in the mean time other suitable references would be good. However, I do think that "measurement" in the context of age of the universe is misleading. I appreciate that the current wording speaks of an age based on measurements; but it is still a very indirect process; going from measurements, to cosmological parameters, and then to derived parameters like age via reasonable assumptions about the model. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 07:17, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Update. The value I suggested of 13.2 is not a good estimate; merely my own off the cuff guess based on revisions to H₀. I would suggest saying around 13.5 to 14 Gy (to be consistent with [Age of the Universe]) or 13.6 +/- 0.3 based on Menegoni, Eloisa; et al. (2009), "New constraints on variations of the fine structure constant from CMB anisotropies", Physical Review D, 80 (8), doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.80.087302{{citation}}: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)

An extract from Menegoni et al (2009) reads:

We indeed found that if one allows for variations in α, the WMAP five year data bounds the age of the universe to t0 = 13.9 ± 1.1 Gyrs (at 68% c.l.), with an increase in the error of a factor ~3 respect to the quoted standard constraint (see [2]). Including all CMB datasets improves the constraint to t0 = 14.3 ± 0.6 while combining with the HST prior yields t₀ = 13.6 ± 0.3 Gyrs (all at 68% c.l..).

The HST prior in this case is the work by Reiss et al I cited above.

I propose that the phrase current reading

• (currently best measurements place initial conditions at a time approximately 13.7 billion years ago)

be replaced with

• (best available measurements in 2009 suggest that the initial conditions occurred around 13.3 to 13.9 billion years ago)

with the reference going to Menegoni et al (2009). —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 08:05, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

The problem I saw with the previous wording is that it seemed to indicate that the age of the universe was a rough estimate rather than a measurement, and it indeed is a measurement because all we need is three out of four of these values: H_0, Omega_m, Omega_lambda, Omega_k. Any way we can measure these values gives us a measurement of the age of the universe by definition. I'm fine with your revised proposal, however. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:44, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Ah! I just noticed the page is semi-protected rather than full protected. I have made the change. I understood your concern about establishing that the age is better founded than merely a rough estimate, which is why I left in the word "measurement" in my proposed change. I've also left the original reference, and added Menegoni et al to go with it. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 23:53, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Big Bang Theory failures - refer S.Majid "on space and time"

Hubble Deep Field give a Universe age for Baryon Matter about at least 40Gyrs. Since Einstein's Universe (1905 etc.) definition only includes Baryon Matter there is no place for 96% of Universe Energy in big bang theory. Using Hubble et al and the 1% sample of Universe Energy (galaxies), the sample is too small say the other 99% is expanding. More likely galaxies are dissipating in a Space many times larger than our technology. Also as many galaxies are in reverse, does this infer that portions are Universe is shrinking? The observed Universe is more like a Production Line creating the elements of the Peroidic table and some compounds. With a waste product 'furnace slag' of Dark Matter. The cooling of this Dark Matter radiating CMB. With this scenario, the ignition could be in many places at random time scales. No need for INFLATION THEORY as the process temp. would be the same wherever and whenever.

That is this bang needs an ignition theory!! Also conversion of Dark Energy to everything else.

GRAVITY Einstein's 'Matter causes curved space' theory of gravity and hence planetary orbiting. If the Universe is exanding to less density. Does this mean Earth's orbit will expand as density reduces?

58.161.199.130 (talk) 12:25, 2 January 2010 (UTC)John E. Miller

Underlying Assumptions

It says right now that the underlying assumptions are "Universality of Physical Laws" and "the Cosmoligical Principle"

But I thought I learned in my General Relativity course that a big bang must have occured at some time in the past in an FRW universe IF the cosmological constant is 0. If I remember correctly, there's an Einstein-de Sitter or Einstein Lemaitre (i don't remember the name) universe in which the cosmological constant is non-zero, and for some parameters you don't get a big bang.

When the cosmological constant is 0, I though I had learned that what made Penrose and Hawking famous was their proof that even in a non-FRW universe a big bang will occur (so the cosmological principle is not necessary in order for a big bang to happen).

Anyway, I think it should say "The occurence of the big bang is predicted in particular general relativity theories (for example, one in which the cosmological constant is 0)"

But I didn't want to change it if the experts say I'm incorrect. Please discuss. Dr. Universe (talk) 23:00, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not in a position to answer this, but I've left a note at WT:PHYS, where there are probably a few experts lurking. Thanks for bringing the concern up! --Christopher Thomas (talk) 04:05, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

You're right in saying that not every FRW universe has an initial singularity. An obvious counter example is Einstein's steady state solution, which was his reason to include a cosmological constant in the first place, and as a (nongeneric) example of a solution both without a past and future singularity.

On the other hand any FRW universe that conforms to the current observations (expansion, density, etc.) will have an initial singularity, which is what I think is meant in the article. TimothyRias (talk) 09:46, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Chaotic eternal inflation may not imply an initial singularity, according to Andrei Linde (although this seems to be a minority opinion).--Michael C. Price ^talk 11:28, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Even without homogeneity and isotropy, I think that one can infer that the Big-Bang occurred if one assumes that: (1) the universe is currently expanding (to a greater or lesser degree) everywhere today, and (2) pressure and energy are never negative so that the contravariant version of the Einstein tensor is non-negative definite everywhere at all times. JRSpriggs (talk) 09:08, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

These issues are subtle and perhaps sublime, but suffice to say that the two assumptions listed are the cleanest and most popular way to eliminate terms in the Einstein tensor that contribute some bizarre and counter-intuitive effects that eliminate the possibility of expanding space and therefore the Big Bang. This is the sense in which FRW depends on the cosmological principle. Granted, DeSitter spacetimes which can also be derived in this way are static, so it is important to assume that the physical relationships of "dust" and "matter" that dominate locally are also important globally or we would again end up with no singularity. Penrose and Hawking are actually irrelevant to this because they just proved that there is an inherent instability in non-FRW metrics that result in singularities and, if you like Penrose-matching techniques, a resumption of cosmological principle symmetries in the next go-round. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:52, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Add to "Religion" category.

This discussion has been archived. It is not a proper use of this article's talk page.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
See the notice at the top of this talk page. This discussion topic doesn't have to do with how to improve the article, but rather one individual's soapboxing for a beyond the fringe point of view. It is therefore not a proper use of this talk page. Let's end this discussion now.—Finell 23:35, 14 January 2010 (UTC) Here's why: It is a "Belief" that it happened, though no evidence directly points to it Fuzzy logic: It states that matter just appeared, was collapsed into a singularity by exactly no force, then exploded. The theory is overwritten by the Scientific Law of Conservation of energy, as "the total amount of energy in an isolated system remains constant over time". Also, we may not be able to prove that the universe is expanding, as we have not reached the said "Edge of the universe". The wikipedia page for Religion describes the big bang: "A religion is a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe". Mevistoveles (talk) 18:45, 14 January 2010 (UTC) Plenty of evidence points to it: see the article for a summary of some. The law of conservation of energy has been tested and seems to apply during the evolution of the universe, but that doesn't necessarily mean it applies to the creation of universes. In fact, the Big Bang theory does not say how the initial singularity appeared, merely that we have expanded from it. Expansion of the universe does not require an edge (see the section Big_Bang#FLRW_metric and the main article it links to): probably the universe has no edge. The Big Bang Theory does describe the nature of the universe and the cause of its current state, but not the cause of the universe itself and certainly not the purpose of it. Finally, the main reason we don't describe it as a religion is that we follow what reliable sources say: since they don't call scientific theories religion, neither do we. Olaf Davis (talk) 18:54, 14 January 2010 (UTC) I would like to ask.... What evidence is there of the said expansion of the universe? And also, it can-not be proven that it happened until we know all of the products of the deal (I.E. Why was there a singularity, if there was one, in the first place), and also, I would like to suggest an addition to the first few words: "The Big Bang is the cosmological model of the initial conditions and subsequent development of the Universe..." I would like to suggest that you change "The Big Bang is the cosmological model" to The Big Bang is *a* *theoretical* cosmological model, as it is, in fact, a scientific theory, and would not like people to get another idea about it (I.E. you may be promoting a certain belief by stating that it is THE scientific model for the beginning of the universe, while it is only A scientific model). Mevistoveles (talk) 19:39, 14 January 2010 (UTC) Several of the best pieces of evidence are summarised in this section of the article. I'm afraid I disagree with your statement that we can't know something happened without knowing why: one can have very compelling evidence that one's car has been stolen without having a clue what caused the theft. As to your suggested change: the current version says "the" because it's calling the Big Bang "the cosmological model...that is supported by the most comprehensive and accurate explanations". Changing it to "a" leaves it ambiguous as to whether there are other equally well supported models, in my opinion. As for "theoretical", any scientific model is theoretical to some extent in the sense that it can never be completely proven. To specifically emphasise it in the first sentence though would seem to give the impression that this particular model is somehow tentative, or that it hasn't yet been empirically tested: neither of those is the case. Olaf Davis (talk) 19:56, 14 January 2010 (UTC) The evidence for the expansion of the universe is explained in this article: metric expansion of space. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:56, 14 January 2010 (UTC) About your allusion about a car being stolen... How would you know, scientifically, that your car was stolen? You would most likely have no evidence that you had one in the first place, except a deed, which can be forged. You could probably forge a deed, then get insurance money and a brand new car. More plausible than believing a person happened to have his car stolen, unless you have an act of FAITH that they did, in fact, have their car stolen. I'm just suggesting.... It's a scientific theory, why not call it one? If it was a law, then we wouldn't talk about this. I would like to ask this question: Is there any law that scientifically prevents galaxies from moving? If not, then the redshift of various galaxies would be easily explained; either us, or them, would be moving inside of the universe. Mevistoveles (talk) 22:07, 14 January 2010 (UTC) (edit conflict)Well yes, any given thing we think we know could be a lie - but we don't go round writing 'supposedly' and 'theoretically' before everyfact unless there's a particular reason to doubt them; with the Big Bang, there is not. In science, the terms 'theory', 'model' and 'law' have fairly similar meanings, rather different to their meanings in everyday useage. It's currently refered to as a 'model' - calling the model 'theoretical' wouldn't add anything because all models are theoretical. Olaf Davis (talk) 22:21, 14 January 2010 (UTC) Yes, there is such a law. The most distant galaxies we can see are at such high redshifts that if it were caused by their moving away from us through space, they'd have to be going many times the speed of light. This is impossible. Olaf Davis (talk) 22:23, 14 January 2010 (UTC) Would you mind letting me know what that said law is? Also, what you're saying is that the speed of light is the maximum speed of anything, no? Otherwise, I do not see why not you wouldn't be able to go at say, 5 times the speed of light. Mevistoveles (talk) 22:29, 14 January 2010 (UTC) Yes, I was referring to the law that objects and information do not travel faster than the speed of light in a vacuum. It's been pretty firmly established by many methods, and is about as certain as any physical law ever gets. Olaf Davis (talk) 22:52, 14 January 2010 (UTC) Big Bang Theory does not attempt to define any purpose of the universe. Therefore it cannot be a religion even according to your definition. It does not seem to be on this list List_of_religions. However I do appreciate that there are numerous religous people interested in the theory. Chaosdruid (talk) 23:03, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Can't Edit!

This is a very minor edit to the picture depicting an artist's impression of how the universe formed. I'm referring to the picture in the "Speculative physics beyond Big Bang theory" section. I think that if we add another line to the caption it will be perfect for the article. I'm having this in mind:"Please note that you cannot view the universe from outside the universe. Since the universe has no theoretical outside, you cannot have this picture. This is just an artist's impression.". I was thinking something on the borderlines of this. If anybody can change it accordingly, then I think it will become a great article. Thanks, Surya —Preceding unsigned comment added by Suryamp (talk • contribs) 15:18, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I think the current caption for the picture makes it adequately clear, especially the part which says "...is represented at each time by the circular sections.". JRSpriggs (talk) 20:13, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Singularity questions

I have certain questions pertaining to singularity 1. if the universe was 'born' in a single point. how far are we from that location ??

2. is it (The Universe & the Big-Bang) Similar to a vacuum fluctuation wherein, particles & anti-particles are formed. but somehow got seperated before cancelling out. wouldn't this mean that the universe was created out of void or nothing Ap aravind (talk) 14:52, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Regarding starting from a single point: Using a purely GR model, all parts of the universe would have come from the same arbitrarily-small region, so all parts could be considered the starting location. If I understand correctly, most scientists think that this purely-GR extrapolation stops working when the universe approaches the Planck temperature, or the volume being considered shrinks to the Planck size, so this should be considered an approximate picture of what happened (just a very good approximation once the universe cooled below the Planck temperature).

Regarding vacuum fluctuations, it isn't so much that the matter and antimatter became separated, but that random processes in the matter/antimatter/photon plasma are expected to leave slightly more matter than antimatter through reactions that violate CP symmetry. We know of some reactions that do this, but not enough to explain the amount of extra matter present. Because we're pretty sure this is what happened, we conclude that there are more CP-violating reactions that only happen at higher temperatures (present after the Big Bang, but hard for us to duplicate in laboratories). This is discussed in greater length at baryon asymmetry. You could argue that this means the universe was created from nothing, but the energy required to create particle/antiparticle pairs had to come from somewhere (pairs literally created from nowhere vanish shortly after creation; this is one way of describing virtual particles). Where the energy came from is a matter of speculation (could have been from an "inflationary field" or other exotic fields proposed to exist). The plan version of the Big Bang model mostly ignores this, and just says "if we rewind time, it looks like the universe started out full of very dense, very hot plasma, which cooled as space itself expanded".

I hope these answers are useful to you! --Christopher Thomas (talk) 22:51, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

It seems difficult to appreciate that the beginning of the universe was really the beginning of everything, including space, matter,and time.All space and matter came into existence at the same time as time itself.Just as strange is the idea that 99.9999999999999 per cent of the volume of ordinary matter is empty space.Recent developments in physics are very close to the earliest moments of existence.The developments in dark energy and dark matter research reveal rewarding pieces of the big puzzle.Ern Malleyscrub (talk) 07:20, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Why speculative?

Why does a subtitle say Speculative physics beyond Big Bang? Isn't Big Bang one of possibilities being considered? If it fits some observations better than an another model, but does not fit other observations better than another model, why is Big Bang not speculative too, as everything else is? Or is this about some scientists trying to outmuscle some other scientists, like in climate thing? Goldor (talk) 02:21, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

The section is not talking about alternative theories to the Big Bang, thus implying that it is speculative.

Rather the section is talking about the period of time prior to the well-understood expansion we call the "Big Bang". JRSpriggs (talk) 17:42, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, a proper understanding of the Big Bang model is that it was the origin of space and time itself, so speaking of a time "before" the Big Bang is self-contradictory: there may not be such a thing as "before", according to the model. CosineKitty (talk) 18:57, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

According to the subsection Big Bang#Timeline of the Big Bang, "Extrapolation of the expansion of the Universe backwards in time using general relativity yields an infinite density and temperature at a finite time in the past. This singularity signals the breakdown of general relativity. 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', ...". Thus the Big Bang theory is not thought to reach past the Planck epoch to an initial singularity. JRSpriggs (talk) 19:29, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I think I may have gone off on a tangent. The original question was about other theories. Big Bang is the dominant mainstream cosmological theory, but there are still a few holdouts for the steady state universe, which is linked here. (I don't really know of any other major scientific theories for the origin, or lack of origin, of the universe. It would be interesting to find them and link from here.) Everything in science is "speculative", if you mean that we might change our mind later when other evidence comes to light. But it is not speculative in the sense that it is an arbitrary guess; the Big Bang is a widely accepted theory because it explains thousands of astronomical observations made over the last 80 years. CosineKitty (talk) 23:38, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Can I refer interested readers to a book;Marcus Chown "The Never-Ending Days of Being Dead".Yes,weird title,unfortunately,but the book covers recent developements in attempts to reconcile quantum physics with observed cosmology/astronomy;Paradox that the expansion of the Universe is speeding up due to "dark matter" and "dark energy".It's beyond me, but physists take it seriously.Is this worth adding to main article as reference book?ThanksErn Malleyscrub (talk) 02:31, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

It's a perfectly good popular science book, but it seems to me that it is probably better suited to a different topic than the big bang. ScienceApologist (talk) 17:32, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Give the reader a fair shake

Information that is in the public domain - especially information put out by a US Government Agency pertaining to the clenching evidence of Big Bang Cosmology - is something the readers of this article should justly be aware of. If the reader proceeds without this information, he may commit his integrity and his time to activities he may later regret. This is not an opinion or a discussion on the validity of Big Bang, but a reporting of an act of the Government Agency that contradicts the entire peer-reviewed literature evidence on which the Wikipedia article is based.

The said Agency is the primary authority on the science issue here. The peer-reviewed literature is secondary.

I am citing a blog post because it reports the facts in a concise and effective manner. The reader is then free to draw different conclusions. Please visit:

http://dreamheron.wordpress.com/2010/02/14/whats-so-hard-to-understand-about-john-mather-fraud/

This post is made by Bibhas De. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.17.58.46 (talk) 18:07, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

You're going to need more than just a blog post as evidence if you're claiming that the COBE data was falsified. See WP:RS for guidelines on sources that are considered reliable. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 18:46, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

It's worse than that. Someone is posting on a Wikipedia talk page a link explicitly accusing a living person of fraud. CosineKitty (talk) 19:25, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

The public allegation of fraud (made on 5 April 2007) is now nearly three years old – and is known to John Mather's employers, and a host of other groups worldwide. Mather himself has responded to this twice in public: once in his University of Maryland commencement speech in December 2008, saying he would not cheat; and again (about Nov/Dec 2009) in answer to a question in the "Ask a Nobel Laureate" program on the Nobel YouTube, saying that his detractors are just a few in number. A NASA attorney and legal advisor has said (in the 2009 Annual Meeting of the Mars Society) that Mather's acceptance of the Nobel Prize was procedurally correct from the viewpoint of the rules about a Federal employee accepting outside money. For nearly two years now, NASA has kept Mather confined to his pre-Nobel job. As to legitimate sources, the evidence of fatal instrument malfunction in orbit has been published in a peer-reviewed journal – it is in John Mather's very own discovery paper.

http://www.bibhasde.com/Mather_text_1.jpg

This malfunction grossly violated Mather's own stated stringent specifications for his own experiment in the very same paper, and thus made the experiment completely worthless - by his own criteria. Yet Mather proceeded to exatract from it a textbook perfect discovery – that which he had set out to make.

For the reasons stated above, it is superfluous for anyone to write a critique in a peer-reviewed journal in order for this subject to be considered by the scientific community. – Bibhas De —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.19.84.70 (talk) 21:33, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Bibhas, we're not going to be including any of your insinuations, protestations, or conspiracy theories on this page. The fact that Mather has had many different roles within NASA is not relevant to this article in the least. That's all the evidence you have from reliable sources, so I suggest you move along. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:45, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Androstachys's addition

I moved the recent addition by Androstachys to a later section of the article since it seems odd to have it appear in the section about the early history of the theory. I also removed the sentence "This model does not invoke the logically awkward and seemingly magical appearance of Lemaître's Big Bang": whether you or I personally think it's awkward or seems magical, we can't claim that as fact in the article without a solid source to back it up. Olaf Davis (talk) 15:49, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Anti-Gravity Bubble Expansion

The entire idea for the big bang comes from the view that galaxies are flying apart from each other. However, we now know that that view is not entirely accurate, with galaxies as well as entire groups of galaxies actually drawing closer together. A much better theory than Big Bang is that there are anti-gravity bubbles within the structure of the universe, that these bubbles are growing, resulting in both a pushing apart as well as a pushing together of galaxies and groups of galaxies. The bubbles would be created by the same mechanism that creates matter, quantum fluctuations. Bob Mosurinjohn, aka Sputnick on APOD forum. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.34.148.124 (talk) 00:28, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Of course, each star or galaxy has its own proper motion relative to the average motion of matter in that part of the universe. But this does not change the observationally supported fact that the average motion is proportional to one's position. See Hubble's law. Consequently the volume occupied by the matter currently in our observable universe is steadily increasing. JRSpriggs (talk) 02:46, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

New interpretation of the cosmological red-shift showing that there was neither any Big-Bang, nor the universe is expanding

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
New interpretation of cosmological red-shift showing that there was neither Big-Bang, nor the universe is expanding Put forward by: Hasmukh K. Tank, from Space Applications Centre of Indian Space Research Organization, 22/695 Krishna Dham-2, Ahmedabad-380051 India E-mail: [removed] Date:20th February,2010 Wall of text Based on the strikingly matching values of decelerations of: Pioneer-10, Pioneer-11, Galileo and Ulysses space-probes with the deceleration of the cosmologically red-shifting photons, and the 'critical acceleration' of Modified Newtonian Dynamics [MOND], this letter proposes that all these decelerations are because of 'self-gravitational-pull' of the object's own gravity. So, every moving object has to continuously keep on spending a part of its kinetic energy. Newton's laws of motion s need a refinement, of taking into account this very-small deceleration, close to: 6.67 x 10^-10 meters per seconds squared. This refinement will: (i) help in understanding the relative strengths of gravitational and electric forces; and (ii) lead to static model of the universe, i.e. there was neither any Big-Bang, nor the universe is expanding. The strikingly equal amounts of carefully measured1 anomalous decelerations of all the four space probes:For Pioneer-10, a = (8.09 +/- 0.2) x 10^-10 meters/sec^2 For Pioneer-11, a = (8.56 +/- 0.15) x 10^-10 meters/sec^2 For Ulysses,a = (12 +/- 3) x 10^-10 meters/sec^2 For Galileo,a = (8.0 +/- 3) x 10^-10 meters/sec^2 and their perfect matching with the deceleration of cosmologically red-shifting photons can not be an accidenta coincidence.For Cosmologically-red-shifted-photon a = 6.87 x 10^-10 meters/sec2 = H c. The reason why the deceleration of cosmologically red-shifting photon is slightly less is because: when the extra-galactic-photons enter our own milky-way-galaxy, they experience some gravitational blue-shift.So, the strikingly matching values of five different decelerations can not be ignored by a scientific mind. Moreover, this value of deceleration also matches with the ‘critical-acceleration’ of the Modified Newtonian Dynamics [MOND] devised to explain the ‘flattening of galaxies’ rotation-curves’.According to Hasmukh Tank, a scientist-engineer from ISRO, all these perfectly-matching-decelerations are because of ‘self-gravitational-pull’ experienced by the moving body itself. Because, every piece of matter, and every chunk of energy, produces a curvature of space-time around it, so when a body tries to move in any direction, it experiences a backward-pull, because of its own gravity. Space-time are bendable; they are not perfectly rigid like the cement-road. So, moving through space-time is like walking on a sandy path; so the moving object has to spend a part of its kinetic-energy, to keep moving. In the case of the cosmologically red-shifting-photons, the expense of energy can be expressed as follows:We can express the cosmological red-shift z in terms of de-acceleration experienced by the photon, as: z = H D / c i.e(h delta f / h f) = H D / c, and h delta f = (h f / c^2) (H c)D. So, the loss in energy of the photon is equal to its mass (h f / c^2) times the deceleration a = (H c) , times the luminosity-distance D traveled by it. Here, H is Hubble’s constant, and c is speed of light. And the acceleration a = 6.87 x 10-10 meters/sec^2. Based the previous paper^2 the acceleration a = H c can be expressed as a =H c = G M/ R = G 10^80 mp /(10^40re)^2 = G mp / re^2. Where M was total-mass of the universe, R was radius of the universe, G is Newton’s gravitational-constant, mp is mass of the proton, and re is classical-radius of the electron, as defined by Dirac re = e^2/me c^2.It means that the above acceleration a implies the ‘self-gravitational-pull’ at the level of the protons and neutrons contained in the nucleus of the atoms.A Gadanken-experiment to understand the ‘ self-gravitational-pull. Since the Sun is sure to expand in the future, and it is likely to swallow all the inner planets and our Earth, let us plan to shift the position of the earth. For this purpose, we will need a space-shuttle which can step-by-step transport the earth’s matter to a selected new position in the outer space. Supposing, in every trip, the shuttle is able to carry m kilograms of matter. As the shuttle starts its first trip, it will experience the earth’s gravitational-pull, and so, it will have to consume its kinetic-energy equal to say, m . g . h ; where: g is gravitational-acceleration, m is mass lifted by the shuttle, and h is height at which the mass is lifted. As the trips proceed, the earth’s mass will go on reducing, reducing the value of g . Also, the mass accumulated at the height h will pull the mass being lifted. Say, to lift half of the earth’s mass, total consumption of kinetic energy is K units. This amount of kinetic energy can either be re-obtained by bringing-back the lifted mass. Or, this amount of kinetic energy, which has got converted to gravitational-potential-energy, can be used to pull the remaining half portion of the earth’s matter to the heighth. It means, that we have to spend K units of energy to bring the earth to a new position. Supposing this new position is not sufficient for protecting the earth from the Sun’s expansion,then we will have to repeat this procedure. And we will have to consume K units of energy every-time. So, to keep a massive body moving, we have to continuously, keep on spending energy. It means that every piece of matter, and every chunk of energy, has to continuously spend a part of its kinetic energy to keep moving.Thus,we considered here a necessity of refinement of Newton’s laws of motion that: Every piece of matter, and every chunk of energy, has a ‘gravitational potential-well’, or ‘the curvature of space-time’ around it; so when it tries to move in any direction, it has to climb its own potential-well; so it experiences a backward-force, towards its previous position. This ‘self-gravitational-pull’ is proportional to its mass m, and acceleration H c. And the Force (F)= k . m ,where k = H c,and m is mass of the body. In the case of cosmologically red-shifting photon, its mass is m =(h f/c^2). This ‘self-gravitational-pull’ can be experimentally verified by: (i) applying force smaller than the acceleration H c in the outer space where there is no other gravitational force; and(ii) we can send space-probes, like the Pioneer-10 and 11, in different directions, of different masses, and speeds. This law of ‘self-gravitational-pull’ will lead to the static model of the universe, making the explanation for the relative strengths of gravitational and electric forces, proposed by Tank^2 , valid for all the history of the universe References 1.Anderson, J.D., Laing, P.A., Lau, E.L., Liu, A.S., Nieto M. M., and Turyshev.S.G.Indication, from Pioneer 10, 11, Galileo, and Ulysses Data, of an Apparent Anomalous, Weak, Long-Range Acceleration. Phys. Rev. Letters. 81 (1998) 2858-2861 [(Comment by Katz J.I.: Phys. Rev. Lett. 83, 1892 (1999); Reply: Phys. Rev. Lett. 83, 1893 (1999)].2,Tank H.K. “An Explanation for the Relative Strengths of ‘Gravitational’ and ‘Electric’ Forces Suggesting Equality of the ‘Electrostatic-potential-energy’, ‘Gravitational-potential-energy’ and ‘Energy of Mass’ of the Universe ” Science and Culture 75, No: 9-10, Sept-Oct 2009 p. 361-363 11:51, 3 March 2010 (UTC) 122.170.30.12 (talk) 11:46, 3 March 2010 (UTC) First, note that this talk page is intended for discussing the associated Wikipedia article, not for announcing your latest ideas. Having said that, let me point out just one major flaw in your argument. You claim that "every piece of matter" experiences a "self-gravitational pull" which manifests itself as a deceleration of the order of 10-10 ms-2. With this constant deceleration, planetary orbits would decay over a timescale of 10 million years or so. This possibility is contradicted by the known age of the Earth. Gandalf61 (talk) 12:06, 3 March 2010 (UTC) The acceleration in question seems to affect differently to(i) linearly moving objects, and (ii) to the orbiting objects. In the case of MOND the effective acceleration gets inceased from its expected value GM/r^2 to [GM/r^2xthe critical-acceleration]^1/2, where GM/r^2 is much lesser than the critical acceleration of MOND. So, we need to think more.11:22, 4 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.201.176.142 (talk) There are many papers on 'Gravitational self-force' accessable from www.google.co.in, which should help in understanding the 'self-gravitational-pull' in question.11:29, 4 March 2010 (UTC) Oh, so "orbiting objects" are affected differently. Occam's razor says that it is always a bad sign when you have to add exceptions and special cases to your theory to sidetstep objections. I agree that you need to think more, but please do your thinking somewhere else. When you have published your theory in a peer-reviewed paper in a mainstream journal, then it is ready for Wikipedia - not before. Gandalf61 (talk) 12:55, 4 March 2010 (UTC) While solving the most important problems, we need to do constructive critisism, and offer constructive suggestions;this is not a quiz game played by collage students.Wikipedia's discussion-page should mean reader's reactions on the subject of the article. Peer-reviewed journals are commercial activities, so they bother very much for the impact-factor and mind-set of readers, they do not loose anything by not publishing a very-important paper. e.g. The paper on Bose-Einstein's statistics was rejected by NATURE, but later the subject turned out to be worth The Nobel Prize.Wikipedia will be helpful in the progress of science, if it helps in overcoming the problems associated with the present system of peer-reviewed journals. I've taken the liberty of removing your email, since Wikipedia is a very visible site and is ripe for harvesting by spambots. Olaf Davis (talk) 12:47, 3 March 2010 (UTC). Thanks. (Sorry, I can't help myself.) I stopped taking this seriously when I got to "every moving object has to continuously keep on spending a part of its kinetic energy". This is a fundamental failure to understand Galilean invariance. An object is never "moving" in an absolute sense, but only relative to some observer in a non-accelerating frame of reference. If an object has to decelerate according to one observer, another observer will see that object start out at rest and spontaneously accelerate! That second observer measures an acceleration, and an increase of kinetic energy that is not caused by any force, which contradicts the starting proposition. The original assumption is inherently self-contradictory. CosineKitty (talk) 19:16, 3 March 2010 (UTC) Dear friends, just think of a situation that every motion is relative. If every particle's motion is relative, then it would mean that no particle is actually,(i.e.absolutely)moving. So, in my opinion, there are two types of motions, (i) relative, and (ii) absolute, i.e. it moves with respect to its previous position. Einstein's relativity is correct with respect to the first,relative motion. But there is absolute motion as well, i.e. a change of co-ordinates of a particle with respect to its previous co-ordinates.The MOND's acceleration, and the deceleration experienced by the cosmologically red-shifted photon, are with respect to their absolute motion.11:11, 4 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.201.176.142 (talk) According to many physicists, Einstein's special relativity is correct only with respect to absolute frame of reference. Einstein's transformations have only one-way correctness. Google-search will show many papers showing mathematical-mistakes in the derivations of special-relativity's expressions. So, we need to keep an open mind. Yeah it is trully amazing how many idiot there are out there that do not understand the math of special relativity and think they found a "mistake". Most theory institutes have regular mail claiming this, producing giggles among the staff around the coffee table. Sillyness has no bound. About MOND, that theory has some serious issues that need to be dealt with before becoming a serious contender. Not to mention that it does not seem to be compatible with various other observations, cannot describe structure formation, etc. TimothyRias (talk) 11:20, 5 March 2010 (UTC) Yes, it is funny: where are these absolute "co-ordinates of a particle"? I would love to be the first to win a Nobel Prize for observing the invisible grid marks on the fabric of space itself!  :) CosineKitty (talk) 16:58, 5 March 2010 (UTC) Also - once again - please look at the big hand at the top of the page. This discussion page is for discussion of the article - not debate about the theory and other competing theories. This discussion should be moved to individual talk pages or to the Science Reference Desk. Thanks! PhySusie (talk) 17:33, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Please insert {{hidden archive bottom}} or {{hab}} after the unnecessary discussion, otherwise all further additions to the talk will be hidden whether pertaining to that discussion or not. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 21:14, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Abundance of elements' boast

The current intro boasts:

The observed abundances of the light elements throughout the cosmos closely match the calculated predictions

No, not "closely", for Helium-3/4 the fitness is very good but for Lithium-7 the match is bad (see Big Bang nucleosynthesis). If we just adhoc grabs a auxilliary hypothesis, say that f.ex. heavier elements are spallated by cosmic radiation producing Li-7, this auxilliary hypothesis by itself isn't enough to justify the fitness to be good, we must have quite a few citations making this statement in the context of Big Bang nucleosynthesis, and in order to be NPOV, we must add something like are considered by scientists^{[whom, by the way?]} to closely match... Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 21:14, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

The true details of nucleosynthesis arguments are actually statistically very significant if you take the priors correctly. What you need to do is look at all the species at once and take into account the errors on each and add appropriately. Lithium-7 is one of the least abundant species still around from the Big Bang and spallation is large enough to heavily pollute the sample (unlike, say, deuterium). So, it's not really a good idea to attribute this fact. The best nucleosynthesis papers show it to be nearly ironclad as a measurement. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:55, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Digging up a cite or two, especially ones that mention the spallation issue, and adding them to this article and to Big Bang nucleosynthesis might not be a bad idea? --Christopher Thomas (talk) 00:13, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

So dug: [2], [3], [4], and the seminal review of the "lithium problem" with the most likely solutions outlined: [5]. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:09, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

File:Universe expansion2.png image - galaxy shapes

Nitpicking, but the galaxies on the image are all disk-shaped, fully formed with arms. AFAIK galaxies evolve through globular, disk, spiral stages. --Dc987 (talk) 09:24, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Good point. I think we'd risk confusing readers if we tried to show morphology evolution in the diagram, though. Olaf Davis (talk) 13:11, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

'accurateness' of an explanation?

Is it right to refer to the 'accurateness' of 'explanations' in the opening of the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.93.5.236 (talk) 08:59, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I took you to mean that you want someone to change "accurateness" to "accuracy". However, I cannot find "accurateness" in the text. Please be more specific about where it is (name the section and give the paragraph # and sentence #). If you meant something else, please be more explicit. JRSpriggs (talk) 09:15, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

May I suggest using the word "coherent" in place of "accurate" to describe the "explanations". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.18.51.102 (talk) 12:38, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Coherent implies self-consistency or agreement with intuition whereas accuracy here implies agreement with observations. We could (and philosophers of physics do) have a discussion about whether or not science gives any truly "accurate" answers but since this article is concerned with observation, and particularly peer-reviewed literature, I think it is fair to say that the big bang theory gives accurate explanations as far as any physicist is concerned. That is to say that, to a physicist accuracy implies coherence. 152.3.44.41 (talk) 20:20, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

constant dark energy

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The above article states that the dark energy is of 'constant density' even as the Universe is expanding, and that the density of observable matter is reducing in this 'Expanding Universe'. This would appear to infer that observable matter is dissipating in an existing 'Constant Universe'. Conclusion? galaxies accelerating under a constant force could produce observed red shift/blue shift in an existing Medium. Or is my command of Enlish flawed? 58.161.199.95 (talk) 02:35, 26 April 2010 (UTC)JEM I don't understand the conclusion you wrote, but the rest of your comment is pretty much correct. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:34, 26 April 2010 (UTC) further to previous query; The query has lost a bit in brevity To expand :- If Dark energy is always of constant density as our Technical ability allows viewing more and more of the Universe. Then this infers the real Universe (100%) is not expanding. The 1% Star matter is disipating in a fixed universe and should be recorded as a rate of reducing density, not an expansion of space. 58.161.199.95 (talk) 09:39, 27 April 2010 (UTC)JEM This is not the place to ask questions about or discuss general cosmology. TimothyRias (talk) 09:48, 27 April 2010 (UTC) True, but the answer to the query is kind of cute. Check out de Sitter metric. Pay attention to the fact that there are both static and expanding coordinates. You are using the static coordinates, but massive inertial observers would travel on geodesics that are not diagonalized in those situations. They still see an expanding universe. ScienceApologist (talk) 17:43, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

big bang model -age?

As the recent Hubble deep field spied a galaxy much larger than the Milky Way at 10 billion L.Y. distance. It could be inferred that the Universe has a minimum diameter more like 80 billion L.Y. if that galaxy travelled at the speed of light. i.e. 10 B.L.Y. to form + 10 B.L.Y for return signal time + 10 B.L.Y. since and a corresponding 20 B.L.Y. on the other side (no privileged observer). At a velocity of half light speed the diameter could be 100 B.L.Y. Can the big bang hypothesis handle these numbers?

58.161.199.95 (talk) 11:17, 2 May 2010 (UTC)JEM

Yes, but please read the boilerplate at the top. This is not the place to ask questions about the Big Bang model. We have a reference desk for that. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:51, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Is the size of a typical particle proportional to the size of the universe?

As I understand it, the de Broglie wavelength of a particle is inversely proportional to its energy. And the energy of the cosmic microwave background radiation (and I'd suppose the temperature of most things in the universe) is about inversely proportional to the size of the universe. (Actually the scale factor (cosmology), which diverged from the overall size during cosmic inflation) Now if the available thermal and light energy is in equilibrium such particle pairs that can be produced from it (which I'm not sure about) ... then I'd think that at any point in its history, the universe would be populated by particles (and "compounds"?) with a size proportional to its own. Is this true?

I so wish someone would make up timelines of various cosmological properties over the full range of time from the Graphical timeline of the Big Bang, including the temperature, microwave background temperature, size of the universe (proportionally, at least), scale factor, and in graphical form, whether each of the various particle types was present... Wnt (talk) 03:48, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

This would only be the case during the heat death of the universe. Prior to that, the universe is not at thermal equilibrium (it's actually quite far from it right now; most things are hotter than the CMB). Pair production isn't necessary per se; only interactions that thermalize particles with each other, and interactions that cause particles heavier than the CMB energy to eventually decay.

This last item may or may not actually occur; among other things, it would require proton decay to happen, and would also require some mechanism for the decay of the lightest supersymmetric particle and for the electron (both of which would otherwise cease to have a wavelength that tracks that of CMB photons, due to having a much larger rest mass). If the electron neutrino has nonzero mass (and neutrino oscillation suggests that it does), you'll need a decay mechanism for that, as well. If any of these processes occur, they take an extremely long time (there are experimental limits on the half-life of the proton, nobody's ever seen or seriously proposed an electron decay, and if a LSP exists, then it's a good bet that we're seeing it now as dark matter).

I hope that this answer is useful to you! --Christopher Thomas (talk) 05:10, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Except for objects close to the Sun, the difference isn't that great - Sedna is "less than 33K" according to that article, and even that is still close to a star compared to the average region of space. Was the difference between object temperature and background radiation any greater in the past? (I was thinking more of the early history of the universe, though the future also applies) Wnt (talk) 06:19, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

33K is still about an order of magnitude difference. Also, per my comments about rest masses, everything in the solar system (including material at the core of the sun) is well into the regime where it stops tracking the wavelengths of thermal photons of corresponding temperatures, due to the particles composing matter having rest masses higher than the ambient temperature's energy scale. Electrons, at about 500 keV, correspond to temperatures of about 5 billion K, and protons, at about 1 GeV, correspond to temperatures of about 10 trillion K. To put this differently, in order for particles with rest mass to have wavelengths that change in the same way as particles without rest mass (mostly photons), they have to have enough kinetic energy (or low enough rest mass) to be massless for all practical purposes.

In the very early universe, the ambient temperature was high enough that protons and electrons were effectively massless. More exotic particles do exist (in the standard model and in proposed extensions to it) with higher energies. This hierarchy might extend all the way up to the Planck scale, depending on which extended model you use (the fact that we haven't generated them yet says that supersymmetric particles occupy a mass range higher than normal matter particles if they exist, and if I understand correctly string theory allows higher-order excitation modes of strings, with normal particles just being low-order excitations). On one hand, the fact that these particles would be produced by pair production means that the majority of them will be well below the energy scale defined by the ambient temperature. On the other hand, the tail end of the Boltzmann distribution says you'll always have some created at comparable energies and a few created at higher energies, none of which will be photon-like in wavelength behavior.

Does this help to clarify the situation? --Christopher Thomas (talk) 18:37, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, if I understand you, the universe has often had a large number of particles with rest mass near or below the energy of a microwave background photon (or equivalent thermal photon); and what I say should be true about them, that their size should be about proportional to the size of the universe (I think by that I actually mean the scale factor...). It strikes me that these particles, moving around near the speed of light, should tend to bump into each other in a length of time that, like the size of the universe, is also inversely proportional to the age of the universe. So in some vague sense, I feel as if the amount of "action" going on during any given era of the universe as defined by logarithmic time should be about the same; and no matter how high energy these early particles were, they weren't actually so unstable by those short time-scales either. So it seems like the early universe, in the first nano pico or attosecond, should not really seem all that unfamiliar to us - it would have different particles, different physics, but it's not just a grapefruit-sized lump of impossibly hot gas, but something that can have an intricate structure and physics and "chemistry". What seems special about our era are the holdouts from antimatter annihilation, the protons and electrons. I wonder whether other ultramassive particles might have lingered in a similar situation in earlier epochs...

Looking forward in time, can we rule out new ultra-light particles? If there were a particle with a wavelength of 10 km that carried a +1 or -1 charge, would we see some detectable sign of it as it was pulled around by thunderstorms or in the Van Allen belts? Wnt (talk) 00:52, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Any light particles that interact via electromagnetism or the Strong force would have shown up in large quantities in particle accelerators (and indeed, everywhere else), due to pair production. Particles that interact via the Weak force, or that only interact by gravity (sterile neutrinos), would have a lower production cross-section and be harder to detect, but would substantially affect the development of the early universe (they're hot dark matter). The large-scale structure of the universe, and a few other observations, rule out large quantities of particles of these types.

Regarding chemistry among exotic particles, small-scale bound systems only happen with components that are sub-relativistic. Your primordial plasma of heavy particles is a scaled version of a relativistic plasma of light particles; small-scale structures don't form in either case.

Lastly, I apparently didn't stress one of my previous points enough. Photon-like behavior only happens when almost all of a particle's mass is due to kinetic energy. In other words, a particle has to be very relativistic for this to be the case. Below those energies, for non-relativistic and somewhat-relativistic particles, this approximation stops holding. Virtually all thermally-created particle pairs of the heaviest species will be at best "somewhat relativistic". So, no matter how hot the universe gets, as long as the particle spectrum keeps going there will always be one or more species whose behavior does not track photon behavior.

Regarding drawing a logarithmic scale of the Big Bang's timeline, this would indeed be a useful teaching tool. However, our knowledge of what happens at really high temperatures is limited. Even the Planck scale's value is an upper bound - large extra dimensions would lower it. The GUT scale's value in turn is extrapolated from very low-energy behavior, and might turn out to be other than what we've been assuming. A log scale is good for letting us show Planck, GUT, and electroweak scales on the same chart as recombination, first star formation, and similar events, but anything earlier than electroweak unification is a best-guess as far as placement is concerned. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 06:17, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Published sources Disputing the Big Bang

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
There should be a section in the article referencing this growing list of published sources which all dispute the big bang theory, here are some of them: http://link.aip.org/link/?PHESEM/23/326/1 http://link.aip.org/link/?PHESEM/23/298/1 http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0301042 http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0111191 http://journalofcosmology.com/BigBang101.html http://toi.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Indian-US-scientists-question-Big-Bang-theory/articleshow/5761894.cms http://newswire.ascribe.org/cgi-bin/behold.pl?ascribeid=20071023.055727&time=07+47+PDT&year=2007&public=0 http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-iarticle_query?1984JApA....5...79A&data_type=PDF_HIGH&type=PRINTER&filetype=.pdf http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v346/n6287/abs/346807a0.html 173.169.90.98 (talk) 21:24, 12 May 2010 (UTC) We will not be referencing "Physics Essays" in this piece until there is independent notice of them. The Aguirre and Gratton ideas are already referenced (see eternal inflation). Lal's ideas and Disney's ideas have also not received enough independent notice to deserve mention here. Alfven's paper from 1984 is woefully out of date and it, along with the Arp, Burbidge, Hoyle, Narlikar, & Wickramasinghe ideas are not relevant to the Big Bang but rightly covered under nonstandard cosmology which is already linked. In short, the answer to your proposal is, "no". ScienceApologist (talk) 23:25, 12 May 2010 (UTC) Arp's abstract says: We discuss evidence to show that the generally accepted view of the Big Bang model for the origin of the Universe is unsatisfactory. - That is in fact directly relevant to the big bang. And the Physics Essays articles have already been independantly evaluated by those professional referees who recommended their publication. And the single sentence that links to nonstandard cosmology is phrased in such a misleading way that no one would take it seriously enough to even check it out. 173.169.90.98 (talk) 20:40, 13 May 2010 (UTC) Furthermore, PLEASE READ THE BOILERPLATE. Wikipedia is under no obligation to rewrite this article to become a tyranny of the minority.--Mr Fink (talk) 02:00, 13 May 2010 (UTC) I'm not looking for any tyranny of the minority, I'm simply looking for some indication of opposing viewpoints, which Wikipedia normally includes in its articles, except regarding certain sensitive subjects, like the big bang. 173.169.90.98 (talk) 20:40, 13 May 2010 (UTC) Then why do you constantly accuse us of being fools, scoundrels and religious fanatics with political agendas to shove stuff down everyone's throat simply because we do not bend over backwards to cater to your opinions?--Mr Fink (talk) 23:13, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

A user has expressed concerns

A user has expressed concerns that one sections include too few view, I am not good with Quantum Mechanics (My use of that term hopefully either expresses my ignorance or my love for scifi) Some one check it out, i have no idea if its legit edit, If its the edit is accuate then FA review might be needed http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Big_Bang&diff=364905458&oldid=364381508 Weaponbb7 (talk) 12:14, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

The user who placed that tag, JosueM, has not explained why they placed it, so I have removed it. Unless they have the courtesy to come here and explain just which signifciant viewpoints they think are missing, we are trying to read their mind, which is a waste of everyone's time. Gandalf61 (talk) 16:40, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Log-scale timeline

(First post duplicated from previous thread:)

Regarding drawing a logarithmic scale of the Big Bang's timeline, this would indeed be a useful teaching tool. However, our knowledge of what happens at really high temperatures is limited. Even the Planck scale's value is an upper bound - large extra dimensions would lower it. The GUT scale's value in turn is extrapolated from very low-energy behavior, and might turn out to be other than what we've been assuming. A log scale is good for letting us show Planck, GUT, and electroweak scales on the same chart as recombination, first star formation, and similar events, but anything earlier than electroweak unification is a best-guess as far as placement is concerned. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 06:17, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I finally had the wit to search Google Images, and found at Georgia State University a very nice set of physics web pages indeed, including a Big Bang timeline. But what seems surprising about it is that it shows no difference in the change of temperature corresponding to the inflationary era.[6] If those in the know don't provide something better, I may be tempted to put in a similar figure based on this. Wnt (talk) 02:56, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

That figure would indeed be a useful starting point, though it's probably best to discuss with other, more active editors here (I'm on semi-sabbatical). Perhaps also ping WT:AST and/or WT:PHYS for their thoughts. I've split out this discussion into its own thread, for better visibility.

Regarding cosmic inflation, I'm actually not sure how the temperature changes during that epoch. A "reheating" period occurs immediately afterwards, as the inflationary field's potential energy is released as particles. During the epoch, though, I'd expect strong adiabatic cooling, but I'm not a cosmologist. One of the other editors here or at WT:AST may be able to answer that for you (and add a clarification to this article and Inflation if necessary).

Thank you for your enthusiasm regarding the project; sorry that I'm not able to answer your question regarding this. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 04:28, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

The temperature during inflation plummets, but we only live in an inflating universe for a brief period on the entire logarithmic scale. In order to explain this, reheating is necessary. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:14, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Origin of Big Bang Theory

Not known to many, the first person to state the Big Bang theory was Nahmanides. "Genesis and the Big Bang" by Gerald L. Schroeder, Ph.D. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.106.215.72 (talk) 22:21, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Big Bang redux

While I am more "comfortable" with the Big Bang theory and less so when reading about Dark Matter and Dark Energy (Huh?), I don't believe in getting to "comfortable"(i.e. Lazy) about any unproven theories I believe shortly after the initial expansion (post Big Bang) in the early universe there was a small amount of "contraction" happening in the form of early giant stars followed by the early black holes found in Quasars and galaxies- could our universe's many galaxies be settling (sinking?)down setting the stage for a future Big Bang II seguel"? Jalanp2 (talk) 23:01, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

For purposes of both the Big Bang and the continuing expansion of the universe, only the very-large-scale average density of the universe matters. This was, and still is, very close to uniform, so star and galaxy formation don't impact it. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 03:08, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

"so star formation and galaxy formation don't impact it." that statement surprises me considering the current "very-large-scale" universe was once quite "puny", plus how does one measure the very large stars that burned hot bright but lived briefly whose impact we infer by the black holes they spawned or seeded the second generation stars (like our own sun) and planets??? Jalanp2 (talk) 23:02, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Puny compared to what? It was still on the largest scales of the universe. This is why the Big Bang isn't described here as happening in a "smaller" universe but only one that is "more dense" and "hotter". ScienceApologist (talk) 13:27, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Jargon

I realize this article has reached FA but I believe that the introductory material is a little jargon-rich and is bordering on violating WP:NOTTEXTBOOK. Perhaps the lead paragraph could be rewritten to something like the following:

The term Big Bang refers to the prevailing theory regarding the beginning of the Universe and its early development and formation. As used by cosmologists, the term represents the idea that the Universe was originally extremely hot, dense, and microscopic and has since expanded, rapidly, from that point. The theory is supported by the most comprehensive and accurate explanations from current scientific evidence and observation. According to the best available measurements as of 2009, the initial conditions occurred around 13.3 to 13.9 billion years ago and the Universe continues to expand to this day.

--Mcorazao (talk) 06:09, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't think we can say "microscopic". We just don't know how large the universe was then - or, indeed, whether it was finite at all. There are various measures of size that extrapolate back from the size of current observable universe, but trying to pack an explanation of them into the lead will make it more complicated, not less. Gandalf61 (talk) 10:56, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

OK, fine:

The term Big Bang refers to the prevailing theory regarding the beginning of the Universe and its early development and formation. As used by cosmologists, the term represents the idea that the Universe was originally extremely hot and dense, far smaller than today, and has since expanded, rapidly, from that point. The theory is supported by the most comprehensive and accurate explanations from current scientific evidence and observation. According to the best available measurements as of 2009, the initial conditions occurred around 13.3 to 13.9 billion years ago and the Universe continues to expand to this day.

--Mcorazao (talk) 14:05, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

We cannot say that the universe was far smaller than today. There is no evidence for or against that proposition and the Big Bang is neutral on the subject. The cosmic scale factor was smaller, but that is not a proxy for the universe itself. Also, the term "rapidly" is misleading. Rapidly compared to what? The universe expanded rapidly during inflation as compared to its expansion today, but it's not clear that the sentence you propose is dealing with that. ScienceApologist (talk) 00:56, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

? Well, with respect, I don't think your statements are entirely true either in terms of what the article states nor in terms of physics. The article states, for example, "Universe continued to grow in size" and "This metric contains a scale factor, which describes how the size of the Universe changes with time". It is true that "size" can be (and is) interpreted in various ways but it is not inconsistent with modern physics terminology to say that the universe was "smaller" at the start of the Big Bang (at least according to the theory), even if this is technically a bit vague. For the purposes of an introduction, though, it is entirely reasonable to describe it in this way (espectially since it is very easy for the reader to understand).

As far as "rapidly" I believe that this is over-analyzing an introduction. The speeds at which the universe expanded during early inflation are far in excess of what the average person experiences in every day life. The article can (and does) go into more specifics of what that really means later. But in terms of an introduction this explains the elementary concept in a way that complies with WP:NOTTEXTBOOK.

--Mcorazao (talk) 03:08, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

"Size of the universe" is a shorthand for the metric. It is inconsistent to say, unequivocally, that the universe was "smaller" at the Big Bang. According to certain theories this is true. According to others this is false (inasmuch as an infinite universe in size is not excluded from classic FLRW formalisms). I understand that "small" is easy for the reader to understand, but it also is a misconception. The universe was denser and hotter and the cosmic scale factor was smaller, but the sum total of reality could very well have still been infinite even as today it is infinite. The final point you make about the speeds during inflation is also equivocal. A speed is measured in length per unit time. The relevant "speed" during inflation is ambiguous because there are no universally accepted physical length scales that are physically relevant to that epoch except for the Planck Length. That particular choice for R gives an absurdly small speed of 10^-53 m/s ScienceApologist (talk) 05:17, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

So, phrase it as "the part of the universe we now see was much smaller", and avoid the problem? This gives you something that's technically correct while still giving the correct visceral impression. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 06:00, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

But it's also physically meaningless, in a sense. The present particle horizon is of interest only to us, not to any hypothetical observer at the Big Bang. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:51, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

The article is being written for us, not for all possible hypothetical observers. The observable universe is what laypeople think of when they hear the term "universe", so references to it are a useful teaching aid. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 04:35, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

But when referring to the early moments of the Big Bang, the "us" in question doesn't exist to declare what the relevant observable scale is. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:16, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

There are actually some issues with both the current phrasing and the phrasing suggested here. One is that the Big Bang theory is not actually a theory of the beginning or initial conditions of the universe, these are typically not part of the model. The big bang model simply states that the universe was once very hot and dense and has since then cooled by expansion. Whatever happened prior to that is not part of the model. GR requires that any such universe starts in a singularity. Similarly, inflation is not in principle a part of big bang models. In modern cosmological usage it is common to refer to inflation as happening before the big bang, with big bang refering to the reheating after inflation and the subsequent cooling. Inflation here, can be replaced by any other mechanism that produces a similar homogeneous flat dense and hot state. (Although inflation is by far the preferred mechanism known).

Something like this would be more accurate:

The term Big Bang refers to the prevailing theory regarding the early development of the Universe. As used by cosmologists, the term represents the idea that the Universe was originally extremely hot and dense, and has since cooled by expanding to the current cold diluted state. The theory is supported by the most comprehensive and accurate explanations from current scientific evidence and observation. According to the best available measurements as of 2009, the initial conditions occurred around 13.3 to 13.9 billion years ago and the Universe continues to expand to this day.

TimothyRias (talk) 08:17, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

That works. I'll go live with that, with minor changes including terminological issues and referencing the fact that the Big Bang requires the conditions to have occurred a finite time in the past (this is, indeed, what distinguishes it from a Steady State idealization). ScienceApologist (talk) 17:01, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

BTW the term "rapid" is no anthromorphic than "hot" and "dense". So add a bit about its early rapid expansion. --Michael C. Price ^talk 18:26, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

But that's strictly the stuff of inflation as opposed to the Big Bang, I'd say. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:39, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

No, even without inflation the expansion was more rapid etc in the past. We just have more of an explanation of why with inflation. --Michael C. Price ^talk 19:35, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

But that's not a generic prediction of the Big Bang theory. Indeed, you can have a Big Bang universe where the expansion was far slower in the past than today (c.f. de Sitter model). ScienceApologist (talk) 20:07, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Big bang in common usage refers to our big bang universe. --Michael C. Price ^talk 20:34, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Can you show this is true with citations? I'm not convinced of this at all. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:45, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Read the into. It's talking out about "the universe", i.e. our universe. --Michael C. Price ^talk 02:55, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, it is not completely clear that inflation happened in our universe. It is the most plausible explanation we have have at this time, but people do consider alternative models. (Most commonly cyclic models) These models have problems, but so does inflation, the point here is that all these models agree on the big bang part.TimothyRias (talk) 08:34, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

We've got our wires crossed; I'm not talking about inflation. --Michael C. Price ^talk 11:17, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I guess we did. Sorry about that. Anyway, I don't think expansion being rapid at the early stage is essential enough of a feature of the Big Bang theory to mention right away in the lead. Mentioning it right away may lead to some confusion like the one we had here. TimothyRias (talk) 11:51, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

what caused the rapid expansion during the inflation period ?

During its early birth the universe expanded exponentialy, is this due to internal energy, or is that 'walls' (bounderies) susrounding the universe colapsed? i wonder this, because if it where the walls such a colapse could support a still contionously increasing expanding universe. i know walls is a bit of a bad term, i'm not a physican and i dont want to propose something new, but i like to ask what can cause such expansion. 82.217.115.160 (talk) 22:01, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Request for expertise

Is there any chance someone could have a look at the introduction to Age of the universe that is also familiar with this article? This article refers to the Big Bang as a theory, but I think the Age of the universe article is using the term to refer to the early stages of the model. I suppose that's fine if you're confortable with the overlapping terminology (this article, beyond the intro, seems to use the same convention), but I think it would be quite confusing in the Age of the universe article, especially for laymen, with nothing more than a link to this article for clarification. I don't want to introduce errors in the Age of the universe article in trying to clarify things though, so would anyone have some time to have a look at it? Cheers, Ben (talk) 12:28, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

In the context of the opening sentence of Age of the universe, the term "Big Bang" is used to denote the initial hot, dense phase of the early universe. I have slightly expanded that opening sentence to make this clearer. Gandalf61 (talk)

In layman consideration I have found little that even suggest the substance of the older (original) content of this theory? Do I need to seach some achive to find the historical aspect of this teory? Perhaps the addition of original work would be helpful to those unfamilar with present status of present day perspective that have developed? keya 15:55, 15 July 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Waziyata (talk • contribs)

Redshift

I know this comment is going to aggravate someone and may get deleted, but have more mundane explanations for the red shifts been ruled out? Such as index of refraction being different inside and outside of galaxies. Even leaving it that there is some unknown reason for the frequency shifts would be preferable to concluding that the entire universe was once a "singularity." That's nonsensical. 204.8.204.113 (talk) 21:37, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

The short answer is "yes, they've been ruled out". Hubble's law showed that distance and redshift were correlated. If this was due to local effects like refraction (leaving aside the fact that there's nothing out there to cause refraction), we'd have to be in the exact centre of the universe with a very precise gradation of refractive index all the way out to the edge to see what we observe. The closest mechanism to what you propose is the idea of "tired light", where photons lose energy as they travel through the universe, but this turns out to have severe problems (described in the "Criticisms" section in that article). --Christopher Thomas (talk) 22:05, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

When did the Big Bang take place?

Quiz question: When did the Big Bang take place?
A. According to the best available estimates, 13.3 to 13.9 billion years ago.
B. It began in 1931, and has been under expansion since then.

According to the definition in the lede, the Big Bang is a theory, and as we can read in History of the Big Bang theory, that theory began in 1931. Thus, according to Wikipedia, B is the correct answer. The answer A is not even close: it is off by more than 13 billion years.

However, I don't think this is the commonly understood meaning of the term "Big Bang". In the commonly understood meaning, the term "Big Bang" refers to a cosmological event (the cataclysmic birth of the universe as proposed by the Big Bang theory), and not a cosmological theory. I tried to fix this but was reverted with the argument that "Big bang" is the name of the _model_, per the recent lengthy talk-page thread. I've tried to read that thread, but did not see that this issue (the commonly understood meaning of the term being a theorized event rather than a theory) is discussed. (However, I kept losing the sense of what the argument was supposed to be about, so I may have overlooked something.) In any case, if that was the conclusion, I think it is wrong. We should use terms as they are commonly understood, not as we may think they ought to be understood. If we mean the theory, we should not use just "Big Bang", but instead "Big Bang theory", or if you will "Big Bang model". Just look it up in a dictionary. It is also how the terms are used in other Wikipedia articles. That is why our article History of the Big Bang theory is not called "History of the Big Bang", and why Timeline of the Big Bang does not start with 1931. That is why Large Hadron Collider can talk about "a 'liquid' form of matter called quark–gluon plasma that existed shortly after the Big Bang", and state that "equal amounts of matter and antimatter were created in the Big Bang". That is why our article Universe uses formulations such as "existing at the time shortly after the Big Bang" and "space itself was created in the Big Bang".

A simple fix is to start the article with "The Big Bang theory (or Big Bang model) is the prevailing cosmological theory of ...". However, that only partially addresses the issue; the stand-alone term "Big Bang" has enough currency that we should define it as well.  --Lambiam 23:17, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the editor who reverted you was incorrect - there was nothing in the previous discussions that supported the revert. We should use commonly understood terms in the lede. --Michael C. Price ^talk 06:01, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

How about "The Big Bang model is [a really great model of the universe, which says it's been expanding from a hot dense state.] This [initial/early] state is called the Big Bang" or something similar? Olaf Davis (talk) 18:07, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Problem with that is not everybody uses the term "Big Bang" to refer to the initial singularity. Many cosmologists use the term "Big Bang" to refer to the hot and dense phase.TimothyRias (talk) 07:23, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused by that reply, because what I wrote above was about the hot dense phase and not the singularity. But we could also mention that some people use it to mean the singularity and some the dense phase. Either way, what about the general form of "BB model is [description], of which [elements] are called the BB"? Olaf Davis (talk) 10:06, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I guess I'm fine with that in principle as long as each use is adequately sourced. On a general note, I think it is generally a bad idea to try to fix problems with an article starting from the lead. It is usually better to first fix the main text and adjust the lead accordingly. In this case, I really think that this article could do with a (well-sourced) terminology section documenting the various uses of the term "Big Bang", and then provide some summary of that in the lead as needed. However writing such a section would require sources that explicitly discuss the terminology, rather than inferring from the way that the term is used in different sources that the different sources mean different things. The latter would lead into mud WP:SYNTH territory best not tread. To date, I haven't found a source that explicitly discusses this (which does not mean that it doesn't exist.) TimothyRias (talk) 10:21, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Getting back to:

Quiz question: When did the Big Bang take place?

A...

B...

C: It never happened, cf past-eternal inflation. --Michael C. Price ^talk 07:33, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

This misses the point of the question, insofar as in the context in which this arose the relevant phrase was dependent on: "In the prevailing cosmological theory of the early development of the universe".  --Lambiam 12:24, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

The prevailing "theory" - or rather theories - includes inflation (form unspecified), and that includes chaotic inflation, and that includes past eternal inflation. --Michael C. Price ^talk 21:16, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Isn't the nucleation of each bubble (or just our bubble) then referred to as a/the Big Bang? Olaf Davis (talk) 10:07, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Very likely. That is something that needs clarification in the article - which is lacking at the moment. --Michael C. Price ^talk 10:11, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree (see my reply above). Simply writing a terminology section could do wonders for stopping certain arguments on this page going in circles. Do you know a source that could serve as a reference for such a clarification?TimothyRias (talk) 10:24, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Good point, TimothyRias - you're right that fixing from the lede downwards is a bad idea, though easy to fall into. I can't think of any such sources off-hand, but I'll ask around. Olaf Davis (talk) 10:43, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

If there is a problem with an article's lead, I think it is generally a bad idea to delay fixing the problem until everyone is happy with the rest of the article.  --Lambiam 12:24, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Except that the lead is meant to reflect and summarise the main body. So write the lead last. --Michael C. Price ^talk 18:47, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I trust that you won't go so far as to suggest that if the main body is written in unclear, ambiguous and ungrammatical language, that should be reflected in the lead.  --Lambiam 19:16, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Of course not. These things need settling before the summary can be written. --Michael C. Price ^talk 08:45, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

The summary was already written when I spotted a problem with it; in fact, if it had not been written, I'd never have noticed a problem with it and not come here (except to complain about the lack of a summary). I saw a problem with the summary; I did not see a problem with the main text. So I described what I thought was a problem that needed fixing, and suggested a (partial) fix. You give as your opinion: "It is usually better to first fix the main text and adjust the lead accordingly". To me, this sounded like you were suggesting we should first fix the main text (although you do not identify what problems you have with it), and wait with fixing the problem in the summary until the problems in the main text have been fixed. But now I understand what you're saying: the authors of the article made an elementary mistake; they wrote the summary prematurely. We should simply delete this premature and ill-conceived attempt, fix the problems with the main text until they are settled, and then write the definitive summary.  --Lambiam 14:20, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, except leave the present lead in place until we replace it. --Michael C. Price ^talk 15:06, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

When the universe started to expand rapidly, was that suddenly?

The phrase "suddenly began to expand rapidly" was modified with the argument: only in inflation does it begin to suddenly expand rapidly. Now further on in the article, in the subsection entitled Timeline of the Big Bang, we are told that:

In the most common models, the Universe was filled homogeneously and isotropically with an incredibly high energy density, huge temperatures and pressures, and was very rapidly expanding and cooling.

Note that this describes the scenario before inflation sets in, approximately 10⁻³⁷ seconds into the expansion according to this article (approximately 10^-36 s according to Inflationary epoch). So when is expansion assumed to have become rapid? As there wasn't much time before the onset of inflation, it can't have been a very gradual process.--Lambiam 11:45, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, in some models (e.g. past-eternal inflation) the universe never starts expanding but simply always has expand. For this reason alone the phrase "suddenly began to expand rapidly" does not make sense. Whether this phrase makes sense in any model is thereby somewhat of a moot point.TimothyRias (talk) 12:13, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

The expansion, if extrapolated back to a singularity, is infinitely fast when compared to how fast it is happening today. ScienceApologist (talk) 13:08, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Extrapolating anything to before inflation is dubious, since inflation may be past-eternal. --Michael C. Price ^talk 08:41, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

No, that's not true. Even if it never happened, since there is no evidence one way or another the sources usually cover all the bases. ScienceApologist (talk) 12:25, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

No, what I said was true. --Michael C. Price ^talk 15:00, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

It's done in the literature., so we can talk about it in our articles. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:45, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, speculation can be reported. --Michael C. Price ^talk 20:55, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

By the way, there is something wrong with the current sentence:

In the Big Bang, the universe, originally in an extremely hot and dense state that expanded rapidly, has since cooled by expanding to the present diluted state, and continues to expand today.

This doesn't run and fails to make sense. To highlight what is wrong, here is the backbone of this sentence (obtained by leaving out the non-restrictive relative clause and the long adverbial clause): "In the Big Bang, the universe has since cooled, and continues to expand today." This needs to be fixed, even if we wish to leave the option open that the universe started its expansion leisurely and slowly.  --Lambiam 11:45, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Fixed. ScienceApologist (talk) 13:08, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Terminology section

There seems to be a consensus for a terminology section. If so then I suggest we go ahead and start one, without initially worrying too much about sourcing - we can add sources latter, as required.

Yeah or nay?

--Michael C. Price ^talk 11:01, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Yea. Shall we begin with a list of words we want to define, and then argue about definitions? Olaf Davis (talk) 11:19, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

While I've not carefully read through the long discussion above, my impression is that precision in terminology is the key concern. In which case, a (short; please) terminology section should help visiting readers, and may also diffuse extended discussions such as that here in the future. Cheers, --PLUMBAGO 11:25, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I guess the most important term to straighten out is the term "Big Bang" itself. Is far as I know this can refer to a couple of things:

1. A Big Bang singularity in general, or more specifically the Big Bang singularity obtained when evolving the universe backwards in time according to GR.
2. The initial hot/dense/rapidly expanding phase of the universe. Usage is vague on when this phase is supposed to start and end. A typical (not necessarily the most common) answer would be something like it starts at the reheating after inflation and end with recombination, but there is a quite wide spread of possible answers.

Those are, I think, the most important usages, but there may be more. There may also be related usages of "Big Bang model" etc. TimothyRias (talk) 11:39, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I maintain that in common use, as illustrated above with its use in other articles, the term "Big Bang" refers to an event – not a state, and "the singularity" (in models that have a singularity) is only the state at the initial instant of the Big Bang, also referred to as "at the time of the Big Bang". But please prove me wrong by providing sources that use the term as meaning a state. When a bomb explodes, there is also no clearly defined "end". The article assigns a meaning, nevertheless, to the common phrase "during the Big Bang". I wouldn't call it a "phase", though. With an explosion one can discuss phases of the explosion (for example, Effects of nuclear explosions mentions the "compression, vacuum and drag phases"), but would normally not call the explosion a "phase". At the moment I don't see a clear need for a separate Terminology section; I'm not sure what problem it is supposed to solve.  --Lambiam 13:23, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

An example of somebody using the term Big Bang to refer to the Big Bang singularity: arXiv:gr-qc/0602086 Ashtekar here uses the terms Big Bang and Big Bang singularity interchangeably.TimothyRias (talk) 14:12, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Note that this meaning in explicit in any statement that refers to inflation happening time x after the Big Bang. TimothyRias (talk) 14:15, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

The arXiv article mentioned uses "big bang" in "the quantum nature of the big bang" (the article's title), in "big bang singularity", in "the big bang is replaced by a big bounce", and in the phrase "at the big bang". I think the latter refers to an instant of time marking the beginning of an event, which I quoted above as "at the time of the Big Bang" – zero seconds into the expansion, so to say. When I replace the occurrences of stand-alone "big bang" (i.e., not followed by "singularity") by "big bang singularity" in that article, it makes good sense in the title, but not so much for the rest. Likewise for "time x after the Big Bang" – in the phrase "a few minutes after y" the kind of entity referred to by "y" is an instant of time, not a state of the universe.  --Lambiam 19:48, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

You are the one that is trying to call the singularity a state not me. But anyway, the phrase "the big bang is replaced by a big bounce" in this context means "the big bang singularity is replaced by a big bounce", the article is about resolving the singularity after all. Again in the phrase "How close to the big-bang does the smooth space-time of general relativity make sense?" the words big-bang could be replaced by singularity without changing the intent of that sentence. Note that this whole article takes place at an energy scale (the planck scale) that places it way before anything else that people conisider when they are talking about the hot dense phase of the Big Bang. The use of the term Big Bang here clearly is to refer to the t=0 point of the FRW metric. This use is distinct from using the term Big Bang to refer to the hot dense phase/period of the evolution of the universe, in which stuff like nucleosynthesis happend.TimothyRias (talk) 08:04, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Beginning to look at sources:

[7]

This is an algorithmic search for a combination of highest impact and most cited articles that are deemed to be about the "Big Bang" as a single term without "nucleosynthesis" which can throw-off the results. Here I summarize the first 50 articles:

1. 14 articles assume a hot dense initial state and ignore the singularity or focus primarily on phenomenology and observations
2. 5 articles deal with inflation or alternatives
3. 31 articles deal explicitly with a singularity (or avoiding it), a quantum initial state, or a "pre-Big Bang" scenario

ScienceApologist (talk) 13:37, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Such a survey is useful to determine the dominant variants of the model, which ought to be presented, but probably not in a Terminology section. It will not reveal without further inspection whether the uses of the term "Big Bang" (when not used as a qualifier) refer to an event (or the start time of that event), or to a state.  --Lambiam 20:14, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

The point of the survey was to delineate when the uses of the term "Big Bang" were describing a general "state" and when they were referring to a singularity "event". Due to the way adsabs searches for articles, the survey is not all that enlightening when it comes to describing what the major variants of the model itself are. For that, you'd be better off checking out one of the textbooks in the reference section. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:52, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

For what it's worth, Hawking/Mlodinow appear to be of two minds in A Briefer History of Time. First they write, on page 68: "At that time, the density of the universe and the curvature of space-time would have been infinite. It is the time that we call the big bang." Here, the Big Bang is an instant of time. But the Glossary on page 149 has: "Big bang: The singularity at the beginning of the universe." This defines the Big Bang as a state. To top this, on page 141 we read: "According to the general theory of relativity, there must have been a state of infinite density in the past, the big bang, which would have been an effective beginning of time." So the Big Bang is, simultaneously, both a state and an instant of time!  --Lambiam 14:01, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Surely only a minor terminological distinction, since everything at that time was, by hypothesis, in the same singular state? --Michael C. Price ^talk 15:03, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, what all this discussion is demonstrating is that the uses and abuses of "singularity" over the years as applied to the Big Bang also warrant sorting out! At least we should distinguish between believing in t=0 as a real moment in time and using t=0 as a convenient asymptote. Willbown (talk) 15:50, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

We should describe the notable models, but I think the issue whether cosmic time zero is a "real" moment in time is a non-issue: any serious physicist knows that in all variants this pertains to a model of which we don't know how well it fits reality (which really means: how well it conforms to present and future observations), and they also know that in models with a genuine mathematical singularity the accepted (experimentally confirmed) laws of physics break down anyway, rendering claims of this being "real" experimentally unfalsifiable and hence meaningless.  --Lambiam 21:43, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Lambian, personally I basically agree with your point of view about where a scientific approach leads us on this question. But I don't think you can say the question of whether t=0 is a real moment is a "non-issue". First, because we're talking about the origin of the universe here! This is what people are interested in. Second, because sensible scientists keep on disagreeing with you (us). Take that quote from Hawking/Mlodinow above - "At that time, the density of the universe and the curvature of space-time would have been infinite. It is the time that we call the big bang." That is describing t=0 as a real moment. It's not for us to exclude this view from this ecyclopedia. Willbown (talk) 10:47, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, I would not call what Hawking/Mlodinow are doing, expressing a point of view. They are presenting a simplified presentation of the subject to a general audience. I doubt that either of them really viewed t=0 as a real point in time in any physical sense of the word real.TimothyRias (talk) 11:37, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Why not? Hawking's no boundary boundary condition is creation ex nihilo. The analogy of time=0 with the lattitude of the North Pole seems pretty good to me. John D Barrow's "The Origin of the Universe", ISBN 0297814974, seems to be saying the same thing. I'll see if it has any apposite quotes. --Michael C. Price ^talk 12:35, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

TR, I sympathise, but you're (informed) guessing... Willbown (talk) 15:05, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Suggestion

Instead of a terminology section, let's write a section called "Singularity" (or, if you prefer "Hypothesized singularity"). We can put all this stuff we're talking about in there and, if it gets too big, fork to a new article Big Bang singularity.

That should satisfy everyone.

ScienceApologist (talk) 15:20, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Let's have both sections. --Michael C. Price ^talk 21:56, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I can easily find sources for a singularity section. I'm not having much luck finding sources for the "terminology of the Big Bang". However, if you'd like to workshop such a section, be my guest! ScienceApologist (talk) 23:23, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Expansion of the universe

I wish persons more knowledgeable than I would address the following question: The big bang is hypothesized to contain, in one infinitesimal volume, the entire mass of what became the universe. Would not its density, then, be so great that it would be a black hole that would preclude the expansion that followed? Allan Marain —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marainlaw (talk • contribs)

The universe was expanding quickly enough that at any given moment, the size of the observable universe (the size of any given patch of the universe that could interact with itself) was smaller than the Schwarzschild radius (actually almost exactly equal to it). This means that an event horizon was never able to form (no piece of the universe able to see all of itself had enough mass). --Christopher Thomas (talk) 18:34, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Misleading opening

Most people view the Big Bang as an explanation of the origin of the universe (whether or not they agree with it). And as this article later makes clear, this was its original meaning as given by Lemaitre. Yet this article opens by saying something quite different: "The Big Bang is the prevailing cosmological theory of the early development of the universe." This statement says nothing about the origin of the universe!

Now, it may be correct that this weakened meaning is all that cosmologists are happy to claim today. But we should not confront the reader with a non sequitur in the first sentence in order to sweep this retreat under the carpet. We actually need an entire section to describe the evolution of the meaning of the term "Big Bang" (which I'm not capable of writing). In the meantime, we should clean up the opening. I suggest:

"Originally an explanation of the origin of the universe, the Big Bang now has a more limited role as the prevailing cosmological theory of the early development of the universe."

If there are no objections, I will make this change in a week's time. Willbown (talk) 09:44, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I've moved this section to the bottom of the page where it belongs. Also this wasn't really necessary - especially a few hours into the week you'd proposed for discussion. People who care enough will find the section without your making an edit to the article to double the number of entries on their watchlists. Olaf Davis (talk) 13:22, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Disagree. In my mind, the "Big Bang" always started the moment the singularity began expanding, so the present sentence is fine. While I'll admit my understanding of cosmology is limited, it seems that, as you go farther back in time (closer to the event), the laws of physics--as we know them--break down until, at the site of the primordial singularity, nothing as we know it (including Time) can exist. Therefore, we can't know what came before. Ergo, the Big Bang is the story of how the singularity "popped" and how matter condensed out of the resulting expanding cloud of whatever-the-heck-it-was.

I don't strongly disagree, though. I wonder what everyone else thinks? — UncleBubba ^{( T @ C )} 13:29, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Response Apologies for violating several bits of etiquette that I was unaware of in one go. This is my first go at a page with so much interest and I was simply aware that others would have views and wanted to make sure there was discussion in advance.

With regards to UncleBubba's point, I think he will find that his claim for the Big Bang is stronger than that made today by cosmologists. This strengthens my argument. We need to make clear that the claims being made for the Big Bang now are weaker than in the past. Willbown (talk) 13:46, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

It's not clear to me at all that this is necessary. While you have an oblique point that Lemaitre's vision of the cosmic egg is no longer considered the only possible interpretation of Big Bang theory, in another more meaningful sense, the "Hot Big Bang" model is much more well-defined than Lemaitre's idealization in terms of what he would have meant by "origins". The issue is, of course, one of whether you can disambiguate cosmogony from cosmology. This is an open question that Wikipedia is not equipped to answer. Instead, we leave it to the best possible definition that encompasses the most reliable and up-to-date sources. As it is, remember, Lemaitre himself did not use the term "Big Bang" to describe his ideas. That was Hoyle's description and, though its coinage as a term was perhaps partially motivated by a distrust of "origin stories" and "creation myths", we need not be tied to those (pre-/mis-)conceptions. In other words, we really ought to leave the lead sentence as is. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:38, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree with UncleBubba, that the term Big Bang is often / sometimes / usually applied to the creation of the universe, not just its early development. The article needs to be clearer about this. --Michael C. Price ^talk 19:07, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

The article is clear about this already. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:09, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

No, it isn't. --Michael C. Price ^talk 19:12, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Propose something specific. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:25, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I propose that the article have a section about the origin of the term, what it meant when proposed and how the meaning has evolved. At the moment this material is strewn about the article (with rather too much in the lead). Then writing a short summary in the lead should be simple. --Michael C. Price ^talk 21:34, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I am of the opinion that the description of how and when Hoyle coined the term is pretty good already. Maybe the article on cosmogony would be a better place for this discussion of how the meaning evolved? ScienceApologist (talk) 14:57, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

1. Michael Price is right that 'the term Big Bang is often / sometimes / usually applied to the creation of the universe, not just its early development'. It is because the Big Bang has been seen as an explanation of the origin of the universe that people are interested in it. Outside of cosmologists, I personally would guess practically nobody thinks of the Big Bang as an explanation of something that just happened along the way. The top of this Talk page starts with 'IMPORTANT: This is not the place to discuss how you think the universe began..."

2. This role in creating in the universe is no longer claimed by cosmologists.

Ergo, the starting point for this page needs to be something that explicitly clarifies what the Big Bang is - and more importantly - is not. Even if the page were clear on this lower down, why are we leaving the reader mixed up about fundamentals until they get there, which many won't?

And with reference to ScienceApologist, I have proposed something specific. Willbown (talk) 20:08, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Your proposal is specific, but it is not factually correct. The Big Bang was not "originally an explanation of the origin of the universe" nor does it have "a more limited role" today. Both of these statements are just plain incorrect. If you could list some sources which get at the sense which you are trying to convey, maybe we can workshop an alternative lead-in sentence. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:40, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

SA is right that the Big Bang was not "originally an explanation of the origin of the universe" but it did describe the idea that the universe originated in a very hot dense state which exploded, a finite time ago. --Michael C. Price ^talk 21:34, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Explosion might be an exaggeration. At least, we'll need a number of sources for that. Also, the idealization of "origination" will need a source or two. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:39, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually I think "explosion" is a massive understatement :-) IIRC lots of sources talked about the "primordial atom" (a popular phrase at the time) exploding. An actual quote from Hoyle's radio talk (if it still exists - I haven't looked yet) would be good. --Michael C. Price ^talk 21:56, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, lots of sources describe the Big Bang as an explosion, but most sources which discuss whether it is actually an explosion or whether that metaphor is useful tend to denigrate the term. Anyway, an exploding universe might look a bit more like what Milne had in mind. ScienceApologist (talk) 13:06, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

ScienceApologist, I think you are focusing on small details rather than the central point. To take your three criticisms: A. You say, "The Big Bang was not "originally an explanation of the origin of the universe". What is it you are actually objecting to here, is it anything more than (reasonable) quibbling over the word "originally"? B. Clearly, the Big Bang DOES have a more limited role today in that it is not being touted as an explanation of the origin of the universe, eg on this page. C. What is it you want sourced? Willbown (talk) 20:57, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Michael has it: it wasn't originally an explanation of the origin of the universe. It was originally a suggestion that the universe started a finite time ago in some infinitely hot and dense state, but that's a slightly different thing than what you wrote. Precise wording really, really matters in the lead-off sentence. We want to get it right. Your point B) is demonstrably incorrect. If you insist it is not, show me a source that shows that the Big Bang has a more "limited role today" than some time in the past. Also, providing any source that states the Big Bang is an "explanation of the origin of the universe" would go a long way toward helping your case. We'll start with that contention for C. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:39, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you both. Michael Price's suggestion of a way forward, starting with writing a section on the term Big Bang, is perfectly sensible but in the meantime and to clarify these points I will try and be more precise. In reverse order as requested by ScienceApologist:

C. Wiktionary defines Big Bang as "An explosion giving rise to a universe". If you type define "Big Bang" into Google, you will get a long list of results all with variations on the same theme. This is evidence that the prevailing view of the Big Bang among the public is that the Big Bang is about the origin of the universe, not early development.

B. The most obvious source for the "more limited role today" is this page itself (or rather, all its sources)! We have a very thorough page that has been worked over and over and which does not claim that the Big Bang gave rise to the universe.

A. Is "originally an explanation" the right phrasing? There are two questions here, regarding "originally" and "explanation". On the first point, we are dealing with a situation in which the term Big Bang has been created decades after the idea it describes was articulated. As this page has set out already, the idea originates with Lemaitre who wrote, in a letter published in Nature on May 9, 1931: "If the world has begun with a single quantum, the notions of space and time would altogether fail to have any meaning at the beginning; they would only begin to have a sensible meaning when the original quantum had been divided into a sufficient number of quanta. If this suggestion is correct, the beginning of the world happened a little before the beginning of space and time. " Clearly, right back at the beginning in 1931 we are dealing with the origin of the universe. So I think "originally" stands.

With respect to "explanation", Michael Price says: "SA is right that the Big Bang was not "originally an explanation of the origin of the universe" but it did describe the idea that the universe originated in a very hot dense state which exploded, a finite time ago." I think the important point is that Lemaitre himself clearly saw his ideas as explaining the origin of the universe (as the Nature quote shows), and so did contemporaries (and not with any talk of "hot dense states"): after hearing Lemaitre talk, Einstein said: “This is the most beautiful and satisfactory explanation of creation to which I have ever listened.”

So I actually think "explanation" also stands.

(For both the above quotes see http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/science/sc0022.html) Willbown (talk) 22:40, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

B & C: agreed. A: but Hoyle certainly didn't mean it as an explanation. I'll see what sourcing I can find.--Michael C. Price ^talk 03:59, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

OK. Great. I'll leave that with you.

A couple of points to feed into your thoughts. I think we should be wary of allowing Hoyle to "own" the term. He meant it in a disparaging way I believe and in any case it was quickly seized on and gained a life of its own. More crucial is the question of when the idea of the Big Bang originates. You could say with Hoyle, but I don't think anyone would have said that at the time. It was a new name for a well established idea. This of course happens all the time (cf "Enlightenment", "Renaissance" etc and even arguably "Evolution") and is reflected in the existing page here which covers the earlier thinking. Hence I think it makes more sense to date the origin of the idea of the Big Bang to Lemaitre, and to see the original theory as they did then, not as physicists did decades later. Finally, "explanation" is quite a demanding word for scientists talking to each other, who would want to see its use substantiated with rigorous theory and solid evidence. But in everyday use it can have a lighter meaning, which I personally don't feel it is misleading to use here. From his quote, I think Einstein would have been happy with it! Willbown (talk) 10:23, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

C. Wikitionary is not a reliable source. The Google results are also not useful. Please refer to a specific definition from a [{WP:RS|reliable source]].

B. No, this page is not a source. You must reference an external source with reliability. You can choose one of the references we use here, but not the page itself.

A. You need a source to show that Lemaitre and others who supported him saw this as an explanation of the origin. Catholiceducation.org is hardly a good one. ScienceApologist (talk) 13:11, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

C "Big Bang noun 1 a hypothetical model of the origin of the universe, now generally accepted, which postulates that all matter and energy were once concentrated into an unimaginably dense state, which underwent a gigantic explosion between 13 and 20 billion years ago." http://www.chambersharrap.co.uk/chambers/features/chref/chref.py/main?query=big+bang&title=21st

B This is getting silly. The second half of my proposed sentence merely repeats what is already on the page as the first sentence and compares it with the claim that the universe originated in the Big Bang. Clearly a theory that explains the early development of the universe but not its origin is more "limited" than one that does both. So what, exactly, is your objection?

A Er, what's wrong with the Nature reference (and the Einstein one, if sourced more securely)? But in any case, Michael Price is looking for more references. I don't have ready access to journals. Willbown (talk) 14:20, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Note that the definition you quote only claims that the universe was once in an "unimaginably dense state" from which it expand to the current state 13 billion years later. The statement doesn't actually say that this was the absolute beginning. This exactly what the current lead says, but in other words which are less likely to be misinterpreted. TimothyRias (talk) 14:35, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

C. Again, not the best of references, but at least closer to the actual definition being made, as Timothy points out above.

B. What you seem to think is "already on the page" I think is manifestly not on the page. You say, "Clearly a theory that explains the early development of the universe but not its origin is more "limited" than one that does both." I say, according to whom? I think that one that explains "origin" is actually more limited. This is a tenable philosophical position: some cosmologists are strict agnostics when it comes to questions of cosmogony and think any inquiries into that line tend to limit the scientific explanations provided by the Big Bang. Neil Turok holds to your view, that a cosmogonical explanation is important. But he acknowledges that there are views which do not correspond to this thought (the views of the so-called "experts" referenced here). In other words, your contention that the Big Bang is more "limited" is actually an opinion that it is possible and likely for many to disagree with.

A. I think my point above shows why this may not be a universal interpretation of what was done. It can be argued that Lemaitre's "quantum first cause" is, in fact, a sleight-of-hand trick to hide the physically and mathematically uncomfortable singularity which emerge from Einstein's field equations. Lemaitre calls such an event a "beginning of the world" but it was immediately appreciated by others to be a stand-in for "I don't know what's going on". It is my opinion that we already discuss this issue in the article well enough, but it's arguably more appropriately added to the cosmogony article.

ScienceApologist (talk) 14:49, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

C: Timothy, it says "a hypothetical model of the origin of the universe". This is my point.

B: ScienceApologist, your reasoning seems convoluted to me. Comparing the two positions, what word would you use?

A: ScienceApologist, I have no interest in an argument over whether the Big Bang was ever a plausible explanation of the origin of the universe. That's not the point. The point is simply the assumptions readers bring to the page. You seem to want to argue that the Big Bang has never been understood as an explanation of the origin of the universe by anybody at any time. On the other hand, my starting point is that that is precisely what it is commonly perceived to be today. The dictionaries, Google etc are just proxies for an understanding of popular beliefs. Your assumptions about what those beliefs are are the hidden assumptions in the page as it stands today, and as far as I can see you have no evidence for them. Willbown (talk) 15:13, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Origin is not the same thing as absolute beginning. The story of my origin for example, would probably related where I grew up, not when an how I was conceived. TimothyRias (talk) 15:33, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

That's because everybody is conceived the same way, but they grow up differently. Hence conception is implied for everybody. But we only have one universe to observe, so we have to be explicit; does the Big Bang relate to its conception as well as early development? Leaving this unanswered does the article a disservice. --Michael C. Price ^talk 06:15, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

The popular beliefs about the Big Bang are not things we should cater to in our writing. If the article surprises people who believe something about the Big Bang when they find out it really is something else, all the better. Our article right now is tied to the best sources on the subject. If it fails to accommodate the preconceptions of the general public, that's okay. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:48, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

OK. Well I think you've misread me there as well! Back to the letters...

C Timothy, you can make that argument reasonably. But the definition is open to interpretation. I think the point is that the dictionary definition is broad enough to encompass my meaning.

B ScienceApologist - as I say, what word would you use?

C Let's wait for Michael Price. I'm sure sources can be improved to meet your standards, ScienceApologist. Willbown (talk) 16:05, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

The words I would choose would be "early universe" so as to avoid discussion of whether there is an actual "origin" or "t=0" point. ScienceApologist (talk) 17:00, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

To which the ordinary man in the street might reply, "What? This is the Big BANG we're talking about isn't it?" But I can see where you're coming from now, which is a relief. Will ponder, but have to point out that the thing you don't want to address - the t=0 point as you put it = is the reason that 99% of the world are interested in the Big Bang. Willbown (talk) 17:23, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Here's what Hoyle said in the radio broadcast:

These theories were based on the hypothesis that all the matter in the universe was created in one big bang at a particular time in the remote past.

[8]

I think it's pretty clear he's talking about the creation of the universe, not just its early development. --Michael C. Price ^talk 19:16, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Isn't that more relevant to the cosmogony article? It's pretty clear that this is not how the Big Bang is idealized today. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:32, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't see how that is clear at all. "Big Bang" covers now the same set of ideas it covered back then, in 1949, namely creation ex nihilo - and if it doesn't that would be explained here. It would be ludicrous to have to look elsewhere for the history of the term. --Michael C. Price ^talk 20:30, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Please find me a contemporary source which states that the Big Bang covers creation ex nihilo. I've yet to encounter someone other than, say, Hugh Ross who accepts that idealization. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:42, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I think the onus is on you to find a source that says it doesn't cover creation, since it evidently did when first named. Either way, this is no reason not to have a name section. --Michael C. Price ^talk 21:46, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

"Creation" is, of course, a loaded term. Here is a pretty good philosophical treatise explaining why the Big Bang doesn't really cover it (and cutely suggests that one would need "destruction" to have stellar collapse if one needs "creation" to have a big bang). This is a source which takes the point as seriously as I think one can take it. So, please, where's the source you're using that argues otherwise? ScienceApologist (talk) 22:24, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Your source does exactly what you're asking, namely associates the Big Bang with creation. He wouldn't be arguing against it if it wasn't already associated, would he? :-) Hoyle himself stated that his aversion to the Big Bang was that it implied a Creator (and at the time he was an atheist). Neat source, BTW. --Michael C. Price ^talk 06:19, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

The point is, I'd say, that the source itself dispels the notion that the Big Bang implies a creation event. We can mention that it doesn't imply a creation event, but it doesn't belong in the lead. ScienceApologist (talk) 16

01, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

No, I think you've misread it in many ways. The paper attempts to disprove the linkage between creation and a Creator - something we don't have to be concerned with here, by which I mean we don't care whether the linkage is broken or not. --Michael C. Price ^talk 20:11, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

What is implied by "creation event" is usually associated with first cause or creation ex nihilo. This is not necessarily the case for the Big Bang. That's the point of the source's use here. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:05, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

ScienceApologist, I can sympathise with attempting to keep this page solidly rooted in scientific consensus, especially when it is probably continually subject to loopy attempts at revision. But this should not be done at the expense of ignoring the historical reality. The discussion above has demonstrated that both the originator of the theory - Lemaitre - and the originator of the term - Hoyle - explicitly tied it back to the origin of the universe, as did Einstein. As far as one can, I think we've also shown this view is common in popular culture. To try and avoid this, as you wish to, is to retreat into a kind of textbook fantasy that provides a highly slanted view of the topic.

We can't continue to argue over a point that has been overwhelmingly demonstrated. Can we please move on! Willbown (talk) 10:03, 5 August 2010 (UTC) (To clarify what I'm saying, I think we need to move on from discussing whether this aspect should be considered more centrally to how that should be done.)

I think the best place to handle this is at cosmogony. Not here. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:01, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you've said this many times, but you've not really explained why you think this article should be the exception, by not explaining the history and etymology of the term but instead relegating it to another article. --Michael C. Price ^talk 20:11, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

We already explain the history and etymology of the term in this article. The question as to whether the Big Bang deals with cosmogony or not is not directly relevant to the article on the Big Bang as it is understood in the field of cosmology. We can just link to cosmogony. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:07, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I think what could be made clearer in the article is the relation between the Big Bang model and any theory about the start of the universe. Although many people have claimed that the model said something about how the universe began, the model has never contained any concrete explanation of how it began, but only about what happened right after it began. In this sense the current lead is correct and always has been correct (even though some of the principle figures in its formulation might have disagreed with this).

The model does however strongly suggest that there was such a beginning (in contrast to an infinite universe), and as such has sparked a lot of rampant speculations about the nature of such a beginning. This connection could be discussed in a separate section that also discusses the some what Ambiguous use of the term "Big Bang", since some people use to refer to the model as a whole, but it also some times used to refer to the singularity in the classical GR versions of the model.

I'm not entirely convinced this is needed, but am interested to see if somebody can draft up a well referenced section like that.TimothyRias (talk) 14:35, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Timothy, I found your suggestion above very interesting. It doesn't really cover all the ground I'd like to, but it would be a fascinating section. Also, your reasoning seems to clarify the dispute here. You talk about the current lead being "correct". I think the way you're seeing it is "correct, as in a science textbook". Now, it may be that the idea of the Big Bang explainining the origin of the universe is intrinsically unscientific. I personally have some sympathy with that point of view. But this approach does actually take the Bang out of the Big Bang! And ultimately, the Big Bang is not owned by science, Wikipedia is not a science textbook and the other points of view must be given their due weight. Willbown (talk) 19:08, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

May I also remind you that wikipedia is not a dictionary, an article generally covers one meaning of the article title. If there are multiple meanings then disamb is used.

Als the correctness of the lead is not limited to any scientific sense, but is general to common logic. A model cannot be about something which it contains no concrete ideas about.TimothyRias (talk) 20:53, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

From my point of view, we're not making any progress. ScienceApologist still doesn't want this page revised (see the 16:01 comment above). I suggest we refer this matter to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal. Could those who agree to this mediation please put their names below. Willbown (talk) 17:59, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I'll participate as long as the mediator has a degree in a science- or mathematics-related field. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:35, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree with mediation if everybody, except me, thinks discussion here is exhausted. --Michael C. Price ^talk 20:11, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Willbown, this article treats a well (if loosely) defined concept, not the term itself. You seem to be attempting a distinction not supported by the sources and not necessarily meaningful in this context. You would need a very strong source to support the relevance of your proposed statement to this article; more philosophical discussion of "origins" belong at cosmogeny. Likewise, the history of the usage of the term "Big Bang" is an interesting story, but in this article it should be no more than a historical aside to the primary goal of helping our readers understand the evolution of the early universe. "Common sense" terminology and usages, such as using "explosion" loosely or metaphorically, should be carefully avoided where precise terminology is available. - 2/0 (cont.) 22:55, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Disagree. An article on the BB should be explaining the origin, history and motivation of the term, along with the scientific details etc. Why you think an article is improved by removing such essential context and background is beyond me. It isn't done elsewhere in Wikipedia.

As for common sense terminology, it is not be avoided, but rather it is to be explained.

I see no reason why we can't have a section that explains the background, history, motivation. Articles that lack such details are not well-rounded articles, and fail in their purpose of connecting with the general reader. --Michael C. Price ^talk 03:58, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Aside from a massive paragraph in the lead, this is what our article currently says about the background, history, motivation:

two distinct possibilities emerged. One was Fred Hoyle's steady state model, whereby new matter would be created as the Universe seemed to expand. In this model, the Universe is roughly the same at any point in time. The other was Lemaître's Big Bang theory, advocated and developed by George Gamow, who introduced big bang nucleosynthesis (BBN) and whose associates, Ralph Alpher and Robert Herman, predicted the cosmic microwave background radiation (CMB). Ironically, it was Hoyle who coined the phrase that came to be applied to Lemaître's theory, referring to it as "this big bang idea" during a BBC Radio broadcast in March 1949.

What more are you looking for that's not in the article?

ScienceApologist (talk) 05:08, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

That will seen as the section develops, but we have already seen that the current description is simplistic and misleading. Anything in the lead should just reflect content in the main section(s), which is not currently the case. As I said, we should be writing the lead summary last. --Michael C. Price ^talk 05:19, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, workshopping new content isn't a problem. Where it ends up can be decided after you and whoever else works on it finishes. Go for the sandbox and we'll see what hapens. ScienceApologist (talk) 13:54, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

On the basis of the discussions above, it seems to me it would make most sense to write the section Michael has in mind, and then go to mediation if we can't get agreement at that point. The main problem with this is that it opens up a potentially much larger pile of work to be done. I feel the onus is now on me to do it, though I'm not sure how quickly I can to the standards that are going to be required. If anybody else wants to do it/share, please please shout! Can I request some feedback in advance.

It seems to me, following the discussion with Timothy above, that we are engaged in a kind of disambiguation. On the one hand, we have the theory of the Big Bang as it is understood by scientists today (the "textbook" material); on the other hand, we have quite a complicated and potentially confusing development of other ideas, especially the Bang bit of the Big Bang (the "cultural" material). Looking at the page, this would seem to me to be the logical arrangement:

"The Origin of the Universe?" - taking in section 7, and possibly shifting some of that to cosmogeny

"The Early Development of the Universe" - Sections 2, 3, 4, 5

"The Future of the Universe" - Section 5

"Speculative Physics Beyond the Big Bang" - Section 6.

This clearly separates the material and gives the reader a simple framework to follow. So what we would be taking on is a reworking of the existing section 7 to broaden its scope to cover the issues we've discussed above. Willbown (talk) 07:36, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

PS I have now drafted a rough version of "The Origin of the Universe" on my user page. Click the clink in my signature. You are all welcome to edit. Willbown (talk) 11:02, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Reogranizing the entire article seems a bit unnecessary. Perhaps you should work on one section only that doesn't have content already in the article. ScienceApologist (talk) 13:54, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Well what I've actually done is merely to revise the existing, small section 7. I can imagine a discussion to come about where it should go. In the meantime, best as Michael says to resolve the actual text. It would be great if you could contribute. There's a lot of stuff I don't know. Willbown (talk) 14:10, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Section 7 is a summary of the article Religious interpretations of the Big Bang theory. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:46, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

ScienceApologist, thank-you for your extensive re-write. Can I ask you to add in the sources please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Willbown (talk • contribs) 17:42, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome. I'll add in sources if you'd like. Put in {{cn}} tags where you'd like to see a source. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:14, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Dear Physicists, the main things we are lacking in the draft text are:

i) A clear sourced statement of the objection by cosmologists to the idea that the universe originated in a Big Bang, giving the reasons for this

ii) Any evidence that this is the prevailing view of cosmologists, either now or in the past

iii) An explanation of how this tallies with statements such as "the universe is 13 billion years old" (or possibly an unpacking of what such a shorthand statement really means).

Can anyone provide answers to these points here? Willbown (talk) 06:06, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

i) I don't think anyone objects to this, per se.m It's a matter of semantics as to what you mean by "objection", "originated", and "a Big Bang".

ii) Ibid.

iii) Ibid.

ScienceApologist (talk) 18:12, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Definitions are important, but so is content. Hawking's No-boundary proposal (surely there's a better article than this about it?) fits squarely within the Big Bang paradigm; it hopes to explain the origin of the universe (including spacetime). By contrast past-eternal inflation has no beginning and is, in some ways, a fusion of steady state and big bang models.--Michael C. Price ^talk 18:36, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

OK. Perhaps semantics could be important here? Without getting into a discussion about whether this SHOULD be the opening sentence, what is wrong with something like the following: "The Big Bang is a theory of the early development of the universe that suggests the universe originated in a single explosion at a single moment in the past, currently estimated to be a little over 13 billion years ago." Willbown (talk) 18:28, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

The words "explosion" and "originated" are equivocal and should not be used because they often cause confusion. Michael points out aspects of why this is above. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:13, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Avoiding terms that cause confusion does not avoid the confusion. To avoid the confusion you just have to explain the terminology a bit better. --Michael C. Price ^talk 19:17, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. But the lead of an article is not the place to do it. As I said, feel free to workshop a section or article that explains what terminology refers to and we can decide whether it fits here or elsewhere. This is how metric expansion of space came into being. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:23, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

ScienceApologist, can you please give us a sentence or paragraph that tackles the question of origin directly and which you and cosmologists would be happy with. There's no point me trying to guess what's in your mind. Willbown (talk) 07:51, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

While a simple formulation such as "the universe originated with the Big Bang" is often used to describe the state of knowledge of cosmology, the Big Bang, as a theory, has come to mean much more than the idea that the universe emerged from a hot explosion at some finite time in the past. Indeed, the idea that there was an "explosion" is misleading because such a description seemingly begs the question of what the universe was exploding into. According to all theories where the universe is expanding (including the now-deprecated Steady State Theory, incidentally) the initial "explosion" was no bigger nor smaller in spatial extent, by a certain measure than the current "expansion" of the universe witnessed today. Indeed attempting to separate space and time into now and then is ambiguous since there are light-like paths which lead all the way back to the supposed "origin point" and therefore there exist inertial reference frames where the universe just emerged from its hot, dense state right now! In short, we live in a "Big Bang universe" which is dominated by the features associated with the model: namely an expanding universe which is cooling off and getting more and more rarefied as time marches on. One of the peculiarities of the general theory of relativity which serves as the theoretical framework for the Big Bang theory is that extrapolation of all worldlines in our universe backwards in time will eventually lead to a singularity. This singularity was of particular importance to Lemaitre, but, is indicative, like all singularities seen in physics, of a context where the model breaks down. In fact, physicists have a very good idea of exactly how the model breaks down at the singularity since the situations with such extremely high densities and temperatures have calculable quantum mechanical consequences as well as general relativistic consequences. The simplest attempt at resolving the general relativistic singularity yields a result that seems to contain inherent paradoxes and even contradict observations in well-understood regimes, but more complicated models have been suggested which claim to solve many of these problems (e.g. string theory). We still do not yet have definitive proof that any particular model of quantum gravity is correct, and, until such time, what actually is happening near the singularity remains a mystery. What is clear, however, is that there are models available which extend the universe's (or, at least part of the universe's) timeline to well before the time when the singularity is naively calculated to have occurred (roughly 13.7 billion years ago). However, even if the universe does extend beyond this, the so-called "Age of the Universe" which is 13.7 billion years will remain a prominent feature of our universe known as the "Hubble Time" which essentially sets the time for when our universe was in the regime where the symmetry associated with whatever supposed theory of everything that ends up being correct is broken. In short, the jury is way, way out as to whether it is meaningful to say that the universe had a "first cause" or was "created ex nihilo" from a "Big Bang explosion". Nevertheless, the fact that the universe has been in its current state for a finite amount of time and is expanding in a sort of rapid growth of space and time means that stating something like "the universe originated with the Big Bang" is not necessarily a statement that can be easily dismissed as "incorrect". It's just, like all pithy summaries, hiding a lot of caveats, possible misconceptions, and alternatives behind a veneer of succinctness.

ScienceApologist (talk) 09:06, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I disagree that "explosion" is misleading. Any rapid expansion, if rapid enough, is an explosion. I note that "rapid" has been excised from the article, which raises serious issues of style and comprehension. IMO such a writing style makes science articles needlessly opaque and inaccessible. The lead should use ordinary language, which can then be explained in more detail later, where necessary. --Michael C. Price ^talk 10:01, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Some agree with you, but the problem with "rapid" is that it is unclear what it's rapid in comparison to. ScienceApologist (talk) 10:06, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Whereas it is clear what "extremely hot and dense" are in comparison with???? Please! --Michael C. Price ^talk 11:57, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

In comparison to today. $T_{then}/T_{now}=1/a_{then}$. Obviously a huge number. $\rho _{then}/\rho _{now}=1/(a_{then})^{3or4}$ depending on whether you mean matter or energy density. Now if we look at expansion, we're probably looking at $H_{then}/H_{now}=d(\ln(a_{then}))/d(\ln(a_{now}))$ which is not orders of magnitude like the other values unless inflation is explicitly invoked, and that's not a fundamental aspect of the Big Bang theory. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:40, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

The doubling period of the universe now is of the order of billions of years. Back then (post-inflation or whatever) it was once of the order of $10^{-30}$ seconds. Claiming that "rapid" is not descriptive of that expansion rate is nonsense. --Michael C. Price ^talk 23:45, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure that it is "nonsense" in particular because it requires us to accept that clocks now and then are comparable. I'm not convinced that this is reasonable. Densities, temperatures, and Hubble parameters seem comparable because they're directly comparable via physical measurements, but temporal comparisons require a standard (a long-duration vs. a short-duration is arbitrary unless compared to some clock) and the early universe had only one standard which was the Hubble Time. For this reason, people often describe deSitter Universes as static even though by means of any material standard they are expanding rapidly. ScienceApologist (talk) 17:01, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Still sounds like nonsense to me, since the universe was not empty. Any sources that say explicitly the early expansion was not rapid? --Michael C. Price ^talk 18:47, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, I'm currently digging through a lot of sources. Kolb and Turner are explicit in their description of the Planck Epoch that the timescale of relevance is the Hubble Time. Given that, both universe's have precisely the same expansion rate: one universe per Hubble time. However, there are other ways of looking at the problem which may give "rapid" expansion rates or not so "rapid" expansion rates depending on what you mean by "rapid" or "not rapid". The issue is one of ambiguity in rulers and clocks since that is the way expansion his happening. One interesting thing to consider is that the g-factors which weight the expansion were in the 100s in the early universe but now are approximately 2+whatever contribution from cosmic neutrinos there is. This would have the effect of making the scaling of the expansion rate "slower" in the early universe than today if you could hold all else equal. I don't think this is clear at all and lacking any sources which says that the expansion of the universe was "rapid" or "not rapid" in the early universe, it seems to me that it is best we just leave it out. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:42, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Micahel's approach in terms of style and construction. ScienceApologist, your approach I think ends up (unintentionally I'm sure) being very misleading. You say we can't use "rapid" because we haven't defined what it means. But the same applies to "early" which is being used in the lead, or indeed any word of substance. Having read your response to my question (which I think is actually about 10 paragraphs), I can't see anything you've said that contradicts this as an opening:

"The Big Bang is a theory of the development of the universe that suggests the universe may have originated in a single explosion at a single moment in the past, currently estimated to be a little over 13 billion years ago."

I've taken out the word "early" as although the theory does extend back to earlier times and this the focus of current work by cosmologists, it also applies to more recent times and, we expect, to the future. And I've added "may" to take account of the various other theories ScienceApologist has listed above.

Why not just make this change now? Willbown (talk) 10:47, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I deal with defining "words of substance" above. We were extremely careful in crafting the wording in this article so it is defensible and directly tied to reliable sources. "Early", in this case, refers to situations where the age of the universe was much smaller than it is today. In this case, we're referring to a value which is related to $1/a_{then}$. This number is "small" for the "Early Universe". This is not the same thing as the expansion rate, which has not necessarily changed as much. There's also a great secondary source text entitled "The Early Universe" by Kolb and Turner which deal directly with what we mean by this. There isn't a comparable secondary source for "Rapid Universe" that deals with the Big Bang. (Inflation, however, is another matter). The issue I have with your proposal is that it seems way too equivocal and too open to interpretation. The current lead is better, IMHO. You might consider asking in a WP:RfC though. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:40, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

How about:

"The Big Bang is the hypothesis that the universe originated in a single explosion, currently estimated to have occured a little over 13 billion years ago."

--Michael C. Price ^talk 12:10, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

It's not just a hypothesis. It's been confirmed by observations making it a theory. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:40, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

No the "theory" has not been confirmed, because it has not been established that the universe originated with the BB. You're begging the question (yet again) by assuming that the BB is only concerned with the early developement, and not with its origin. --Michael C. Price ^talk 23:10, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not so keen on that because:

• the theory is really about the expansion of the universe in the first place; then we wind back towards t=0. You, like Hoyle (mischievously), have made the bang the starting point of the reasoning, not a conclusion.
• it loses the fact that it is a living body of knowledge with lots of cosmologists studying it
• hypothesis is a bit too weak. Willbown (talk) 14:43, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

• • hypothesis is intentionally weak, because it is not developed enough to be a theory.
  • "Big Bang" is a hypothesis about how everything started, hence the name!
  • "currently estimated" indicates the living nature of the hypothesis.
  • --Michael C. Price ^talk 15:22, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
    • Reliable sources contradict you. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:40, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
      • Since you interpret sources differently than I would, you need to be specific. --Michael C. Price ^talk 23:10, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
        • Well, at a rather basic level: [9]. ScienceApologist (talk) 17:01, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
          • Yes, but rather too basic, don't you think? He obviously imagines he's talking to children or a bunch of retards. Anyhow, he hasn't addressed the issue raised here; the BB is not a theory precisely because it doesn't provide an explanation for creation ex nihilo. He doesn't address this. --Michael C. Price ^talk 18:47, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

It seems to me that the "too basic" level is probably okay considering the usual context that "theory vs. hypothesis" gets discussed. Most sources describe it as a theory, I think that's good enough. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:42, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

But what you've lost is the sense that Big Bang refers not only to the hypothetical moment but also to the theory that suggests that moment. That I think is the killer for your proposal. Also, I just think that if you start with theory (which is how it was historically) and then move on to the conclusion (the bang), you get the logic right from the start and everything later is easier to explain.Willbown (talk) 17:31, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

You're still calling it a theory, as if it is all worked out and settled. It isn't. It was a vague conjecture, and still is to some extent. --Michael C. Price ^talk 23:10, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

The word "theory" doesn't imply it's all worked out and settled. Steady state theory is still a theory even though we believe it's wrong. How much reliance should be placed on the theory is something that should be spelled out in due course. How about this for the opening, replacing what is currently the first paragraph:

"The Big Bang is a theory of the development of the universe that suggests it may have originated in a single explosion in the past, currently estimated to be about 13 billion years ago.

The theory explains the reddish tinge observed in stars by positing that the universe itself is expanding. Winding the clock back leads to the conclusion that everything we observe in the universe now emerged from a "Big Bang" in the past.

Since the first paper was published by Georges Lemître in 1927, the theory has developed to become the dominant model used by cosmologists to explain the universe. The theory was quickly supported by the observation in 1929 that the degree to which stars are redshifted is proportional to their distance from us. And the discovery in 1964 of cosmic microwave background radiation provided striking evidence that the universe did indeed go through a hot dense phase billions of years ago, as the theory predicts.

Today the theory is still being actively developed by cosmologists, who are modelling events in the first second of the universe. But what, if anything, the theory tells us about the first instant of the universe and what, if anything, may have come before the Big Bang remains a topic of debate." Willbown (talk) 06:46, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

The red shift is not the cruical evidence (and "reddish tinge" is dumbing down into factually incorrect). It was the CMB and the relative proportions of the elements that was important in tipping the scales against Hoyle's steady state.

But I can't judge the proposal without seeing the links. I suggest you put the polished version here so we can work on it. --Michael C. Price ^talk 07:36, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

@Willbown I haven't been a part of (or, honestly, even read through) the discussion up to this point, so I can't comment on the actual content of your proposal. However, just as a stylistic thing, could we try removing some uses of the word "theory"? This last proposal uses the word in every single sentence for 3 paragraphs. If it could be cleaned up to flow at least as well as the current lead, I think it would be more likely to gain support. (Again, content aside).

Jess

_talk
edits

07:47, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Dear All, I'm exhausted. While the very serious problems with this page have, in my opinion, been abundantly revealed in these exchanges, we are no nearer to any revision. There's no agreement on the defects or what needs to be done, and no proposed revision is making any progress. And that's after a solid week of trying. Given that this must be one of the oldest and most popular pages in wikipedia, I find this depressing. But considering the further weeks likely required to bring this to a conclusion, I think I am obliged to use my time more constructively. I am instead now going to put my energy into researching and writing a history of "the Big Bang" for publication elsewhere. My sincere thanks to everyone who contributed to this discussion, from which I learnt a lot. Good luck and best wishes. Willbown (talk) 14:36, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Good luck. Yes, these exchanges can be exhausting. I think you brought up some good points, but it's still not clear to me how and where they should be handled. I still maintain that a better cosmogony page would allay these concerns, but I'm not sure. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:42, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

In which case, rename this page "Big Bang theory"... Willbown (talk) 18:28, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I think that this is quibbling over scholastic semantics. Much like saying we should call structure formation structure formation theory. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:33, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Willbown is correct; this article can not progress as long as ScienceApologist owns it. Unfortunately ScienceApologist has not a clue about writing science articles, as witnessed by his inability to accept that the universe was expanding more rapidly in the past than today, and should be described as such. --Michael C. Price ^talk 06:20, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

@Michael careful of the personal attacks. For what it's worth, I haven't been able to follow the conversation 100%, but ScienceApologist has seemed quite courteous and thorough in his discussion with you, and has (AFAICT) provided reasonable explanations for his position. It's understood that you're frustrated, but I don't think there's been any reason to bridge the WP:ABF gap by throwing around accusations, particularly at an editor who has exhibited quite a bit of patience in maintaining a polite tone. Jess_talk|_edits 07:22, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Assertions of cluelessness are, according to WP:CLUE, distinct from WP:ABF. Yes, SA has been courteous, but his arguments are irrelevant - dressed up in GR jargon they superfically appear reasonable, but are in fact irrelevant, since (as I said, earlier) our universe is not, and was not, empty. --Michael C. Price ^talk 08:36, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Assertions of WP:OWN however are WP:ABF. Assertions WP:CLUE are [[WP:PA].TimothyRias (talk) 09:32, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Suggestion

It might actually be a good idea to create a separate Big bang singularity article. There is quite a bit of interesting stuff to be said about big bang singularities in general. (Singularity theorems, BKL, physicality, etc.) Since exact usage of the term "Big Bang" varies from referring to the theory, to referring to the singularity, to referring to a certain period in the development of the universe, it is probably better to rename this page to Big bang theory to better establish its scope.TimothyRias (talk) 09:42, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Seconded. Willbown (talk) 15:57, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Thirded. --Michael C. Price ^talk 17:54, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Random guy dropping by to fourth that sentiment. Abyssal (talk) 18:06, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

ScienceApologist, if you don't want this to happen, then you need to set out a good reason why not. Being precise about what is under discussion is good editing, not semantics. Willbown (talk) 22:45, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

WP:SILENCE. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:58, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

OK. Someone seems to have made some changes, which is good. But I don't understand how you change the title at the top of a page. Ours still says "Big Bang", not "Big Bang Theory". Can someone more expert please make this fix? Willbown (talk) 07:43, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Requested Move

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no consensus to move. Also, the WP:UCN argument below is persuasive. --RegentsPark (talk) 03:09, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Big Bang → Big Bang theory — See discussion above.TimothyRias (talk) 09:25, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

• Failing a concise explanation or summary of the discussion above, I'll oppose this for the same reason I would oppose moving Evolution to Evolution theory/Theory of evolution. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 15:13, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

• • How hard is it to actually read the section preceding this one? The reason for the name change is to better establish the scope of this article. The term 'Big Bang' can be used in various related ways. For example, it can refer generically to a big bang singularity, etc. The term 'Big Bang theory' of 'Big Bang model' however always refers to the model discribing the evolution of the early universe.TimothyRias (talk) 15:34, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

• • • Oh I don't know, it's only a discussion that spans 17 pages in OpenOffice's Writer. You're the one asking for feedback, so before accusing me of being lazy, how about not being lazy yourself and give a summary of the arguments rather than ask people to read a massive section? Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 17:29, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

• • • • Well the preceding discussion was an attempt to fix the problems with the page within its existig remit. The attempt failed despite lots of input from several people. So this narrowing of the scope of the page is a simple resolution to a complicated problem. If you don't like it, there is something of an obligation on you to fix the problems another way. Anyway, the changed name would better reflect the actual content of the page as it now is. The difference with evolution, for example, is that the theory of evolution certainly implies and requires evolution but Big Bang theory does not necessarily imply or require a Big Bang! (if by that you mean a moment in which the universe was created, or several of the various other related meanings that have been discussed above) Willbown (talk) 18:12, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

• • • Headbomb, I'm only requesting you read the very short section preceding this one. The first post (only 4 lines) contains the arguments why a move/rename is requested. The other 6 lines are basically four one line endorsements of that request, a short question, and the conclusion that the page is move protected leading to this request. Not that much to read really. (Also, appology for calling you lazy, the remark was made in good humour.TimothyRias (talk) 07:19, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

• Could I propose that we name it Big Bang cosmology instead? That's a bit clearer. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:36, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

• That would be fine with me as well.TimothyRias (talk) 08:43, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

• Personally, I think a lot more people now what a theory is than know what cosmology is. But I'm not strongly against Big Bang cosmology. Willbown (talk) 09:02, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

• In the literature, Big Bang cosmology beats out Big Bang theory by nearly an order of magnitude. ScienceApologist (talk) 07:19, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose. Other uses of the term are already covered via standard "other uses" templates, and the vast majority of searches for this article's subject will likely use the words "big bang" only. Having them hit a redirect or a disambiguation page instead of this article serves no purpose that I can see. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 21:54, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose per WP:UCN. Until we have a second article on the "Big Bang Singularity", the reason for a move can only be to rename the article, not to differentiate scope. Per Chris, most searches for the article will be for "Big Bang", and therefore according to guideline a rename would be inappropriate. Jess_talk|_edits 22:09, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

• The problem here is not differentiating scope but establishing scope. Most readers will expect a different scope from the title "Big Bang" that the scope of the current article. There are two ways to fix that. Either, adjust the scope of the article. This would involve rewriting substantial parts of this article. Or, the ease fix adjust the title of the article to match scope of the article as currently written.

  To illustrate the scope problem: A general reader will expect an article titled "Big Bang" to answer the question "What is a 'Big Bang'?". The current article neither address or answers that question. (Partly, because no well agreed on answer to that question exists, different people mean slightly different things by a "Big Bang".)TimothyRias (talk) 08:54, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

• I wish to endorse strongly TR's comments directly above. Also, dear editors, I ask that you use your familiarity with the wikipedia rulebook to help us get to the right conclusion, not browbeat us into submission. CT, no-one is proposing to send users to disambiguation! The reason for using Big Bang theory is that it more clearly describes the subject matter of the page and orients the reader to what the page contains. Importantly, you should note that the page, as reflected in the intro, does not address the concept of a Big Bang but rather addresses a theory in physics. Your confusion on this point is precisely what we are trying to help readers avoid. Jess, in the light of this and TR's comment above, if your objection still stands, can you clarify what the guidelines you are citing actually say please and how they apply here. Willbown (talk) 09:02, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

@Willbown and Timothy, WP:UCN requires us to use the common name for the article. Establishing scope is not a factor if we don't have a "Big Bang Singularity" article to differentiate from. If "Big Bang" is more common than "Big Bang Theory", then a rename is inappropriate. Jess_talk|_edits 19:00, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that the term "Big Bang" does not cover the scope of the current article. WP:UCN applies if a single subject is known under multiple names, which in this case is not the case. "Big Bang" is not a synonym of "Big Bang theory" it is the latter rather than the former that is currently described in this article. According to the lead the subject of this article is "is the prevailing cosmological theory of the early development of the universe." Obviously, this theory is not the "Big Bang", which (depending on your use of terminology) is the event described by the prevailing cosmological theory. Of course, we could rewrite this article such that the Big Bang becomes its main subject, but the more practical thing to do is to rename the article such that the title matches its subject.

Also, if you really do insist on applying WP:UCN I think it is far from clear that this would imply that the name should be "Big Bang". Thanks to a popular TV comedy the term "Big Bang theory" might be more common as well.TimothyRias (talk) 06:24, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I intentionally did not pass judgment on which term is more common. According to User:Christopher Tomas "Big Bang" is, but I haven't seen any data. If the case is that "Big Bang Theory" is more prevalent, then I would support a rename for the same reason. The other issue of proper naming is, I believe, a problem of being pedantic. The current article covers the state of the early universe according to BB cosmology, and what the theory posits happened thereafter. Further, it's the only article to do so. That means that its scope is (and should be) the "Big Bang". That we talk about the BB theory and BB cosmology quite a bit in the article is a necessary product of describing the BB as a whole. Furthermore, outside of the Astronomy and Physics realm, the three terms are synonymous, and should be treated as such in naming. If there was a "Big Bang singularity" article to contend with, or data showing that "BB theory" is more prevalent, or reliable sources showing that any of the terms is not synonymous outside of the realm of science, then my vote would immediately change. Short of that, it would seem WP:UCN opposes this proposal. Jess_talk|_edits 08:06, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Jess, I should point out that in the discussion further down this page, contributors seem to be moving towards making a sigularity page anyway, which is one reason for you to withdraw your opposition. Here's a second. I accept that you and your Editor colleagues are in charge. But you are not looking at the whole picture. By focusing exclsively on the question of the name of the page, you are ignoring the content of the page! This page has been ticked in various ways as one of the best pages in wikipedia but is massively confusing. It's an embarrassment to the processes you are championing. In reality, there are two possible solutions to the current mess:

1 - Keep the current name and rework the entire page so that it addresses the Big Bang, ie the origin of the universe.

2 - Rename the page to Big Bang theory and focus on that.

What you can't do is to have a page whose name is about one thing and whose content is about another - especially when the two concepts are related. Now, if the Editors want to go with option 1, then what you need to do is to make explicitly clear that the page needs to be reworked to focus on the Big Bang and not on Big Bang theory, because otherwise, as the lengthy discussion above makes clear, it ain't never gonna happen. Willbown (talk) 08:17, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I have to sleep for an early flight tomorrow, so I can't reply in full. Suffice it to say that none of the reasons I've outlined above for changing my position have been met, and I retain my vote. Furthermore, I really have no idea where you got the idea that I "and my Editor colleagues" (whoever they are) are in charge. This impression you have is untrue, I haven't ever asserted it, nor do have I done anything to even remotely give off such an impression. That said, WP policy is in charge, so if WP:UCN disagrees with this proposal, then we have to follow that. Jess_talk|_edits 09:48, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Jess, fundamentally I think you are elevating relatively small details of the wikipedia guidelines above important general principles. If and when you find the bit of wikipedia's rules that says it's a good idea to have the title of the page about a different concept to the body of the page, I'll reconsider my vote. Meanwhile, if I count the people in the initial discussion who agreed to this move, it's 5-1 against you. So if it's just a question of voting I'll go back to sleep. How do we vote, when? Willbown (talk) 12:15, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Again, I cannot reply in full. Foremost, I think you're mischaracterising my comments, which is a shame. Second, Headbomb and Christopher Thomas were also opposed. Third, I would ask that any of those who commented in the "initial discussion" place there vote here, as I don't see a single "support" for the rename from them here. Jess_talk|_edits 16:20, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Jess, you say I've mischaracterised your comments, which sounds kind of shady and underhand, as if I'm deceiving readers of this discussion. But that's not really the case, is it? To read my comments, everyone also has to read what you've said. What I am doing is disagreeing with you. To reiterate, the reason the name change has been supported by all the people involved in the previous long discussion is that we recognise there is a big fundamental problem with this page that this alteration will go a good way to fixing. You may have a point in that the fix is not perfect, but this is a relatively trivial detail. The house is on fire and we want to put it out. Unfortunately, you are not disagreeing back. You started off by saying you hadn't read the preceding discussion. Now you're too busy to engage with any of the arguments put to you. In other words, you're not participating in a discussion, you're just sitting there saying No. This is exercising power without responsibility. Which really is a shame, especially for one of the higher-ups in the wikipedia hierarchy who can toss out threats to have other participants here banned. Kindly either address yourself to the problem of reconciling a page that is about Big Bang physics theory with a title and presumption by users that it is about something else, or go away. Willbown (talk) 07:38, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose move - I see nothing wrong with the present title, which is the one readers would expect. The lead can nonetheless be made to fit the title better (I've just attempted to do so).--Kotniski (talk) 15:30, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Rapidity

After some careful consideration of standard Big Bang models, it seems clear to me now that we can describe the early universe as being "rapidly expanding" since the Hubble Paramter scales roughly with the inverse of the scale factor. It took me some time to arrive at this conclusion, but it looks correct. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:02, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

"some time" indeed. Two months! Words fail me. --Michael C. Price ^talk 05:16, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Not everyone can be as brilliantly insightful as you, Michael. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:27, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

$H^{2}={\frac {8\pi G}{3}}\rho$ in the early, but post-inflated, universe does not require brilliant insight. --Michael C. Price ^talk 09:08, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

$v=D\times {\sqrt {{\frac {8\pi G}{3}}\rho }}$ for $\lim D\rightarrow 0$ and for $\lim \rho \rightarrow \infty$. Not as straightforward as you make it out to be. ScienceApologist (talk) 12:17, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes it is; we are not talking about the initial singularity here (cf "early, but post-inflated"). However, since you are alone in your views, I shall let the matter drop.--Michael C. Price ^talk 15:12, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

The argument applies regardless of what limit you take. I just took the singularity limit for convenience sake. Otherwise, we could argue that your "brilliant insight" shows the universe to be expanding slowly since $\rho$ is not infinite and maybe I think $H$ needs to be bigger for the expansion to be rapid. ;P ScienceApologist (talk) 19:48, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

*Sigh* Once again you are not seeing the wood for the trees. As you were reminded a couple of months ago, "rapid" is a relative term. --Michael C. Price ^talk 21:06, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Beating the dead horse: I reminded you of this some time back and got my head bit off. Anyway, there is consensus over this word now. That's what matters. ScienceApologist (talk) 17:11, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

No you didn't, and yes there is a consensus now. --Michael C. Price ^talk 17:21, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

For the record: [10]. I see that as synonymous and if you don't, tough luck because that just means you didn't understand me. ScienceApologist (talk) 17:26, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Or that you don't understand how to write science articles. --Michael C. Price ^talk 17:50, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Evidence. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:41, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Guys, this is quickly approaching WP:PA. There is consensus now. We need to stop taking shots at each other just for the sake of venting frustration. Michael, I reminded you of this a week ago. Please don't turn this into a "battle" which will require admin intervention. We're all acting in good faith here. Jess_talk|_edits 18:44, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Jess, as I said before, I'm not assuming bad faith. --Michael C. Price ^talk 20:45, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I didn't accuse you of bad faith. I said you were making personal attacks. Please stop, and concentrate on the article. Jess_talk|_edits 21:57, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

This isn't about "venting frustration" - at least not for me, anyhow - it's about making sure we don't repeat past mistakes of writing obscure and unnecessrily opaque prose, and then defend this with pseudo-babble dressed up in GR jargon. If someone feels criticised as part of that, sobeit. --Michael C. Price ^talk 22:10, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Pseudo-babble? ScienceApologist (talk) 23:13, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

@Michael No. Not "sobeit". WP:PA is very clear that personal attacks are not allowed. I've personally warned you twice about this now, and I see you have a history of crossing the PA line. This is fair warning -- your third one -- that personal attacks are not constructive, against policy, and a blockable offense. You've been here long enough to know this by now, but I'd really like to see you work constructively with other editors on this article, without having to take this any further. That's the last I'll say on the matter. Please just concentrate on the article, and not on other editors. Thanks, Jess_talk|_edits 00:54, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Jess, I said "If someone feels criticised as part of that, sobeit." That's not an admission of making a PA, in fact it is an implicit denial. --Michael C. Price ^talk 06:16, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

If you have legitimate questions about WP:PA, then please take it to either the policy discussion page or user space. I'd be happy to clarify further there. If your goal is just to argue with me over the applicability of WP:PA, then there's not much point. You were warned. Feel free to take that as you will. All the best, Jess_talk|_edits 07:00, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I think you set the bar too low (i.e. lower than as specified at WP:PA), which I have already commented on on my talk page. --Michael C. Price ^talk 07:16, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page. Let's keep the convo there. Jess_talk|_edits 09:50, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Before the Big Bang Theory?

What theories existed before the "Big Bang" was put forward? Interested in reading about alternative theories even if they are out of fashion, thought they might have been mentioned in this article. Jaqian (talk) 22:58, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

There is an outline of other historical theories in our articles on cosmology and timeline of cosmology. The main historical scientific alternatives to the Big Bang theory were the steady state theory and the cyclic model theory. Gandalf61 (talk) 08:30, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure that there was anything that one could call a "scientific theory" for the universe as a whole before there was the Big Bang theory. My impression was that most scientists just sort of assumed that things were always as they were. It is difficult to appreciate just how much has been learned since the turn of the 20th century, and how much there was in need of an explanation. My impression is that even the word "cosmology" was not in favor with astronomers. I'm writing this, not because I am knowledgeable about this, but rather because I am not, and I, like Jaqian, would appreciate a few words about the state of cosmology before the BB theory. TomS TDotO (talk) 11:35, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, before Einstein's formulation of general relativity I am sure that most scientists simply assumed that we inhabited a static universe because it seemed logical to extend the cosmological principle to time as well as space. Indeed, so unquestioned was this assumption that when Einstein realised that a static universe would be an unstable solution to the equations of general relativity, he was certain that the flaw lay in his theory rather than in the static universe assumption, and he modified his theory to make it fit the assumption. The steady state theory arose out of an attempt to accommodate Hubble's discovery of the cosmological redshift within an eternal universe model, by allowing space to expand but invoking a steady continous creation of matter to keep the average density of matter constant. Gandalf61 (talk) 14:52, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

When did the universe become infinite?

I believe the Big Bang calculation is based on the assumption that spatially the universe is either Euclidean or hyperbolic which means that it is infinite in extent. Can any tell me when it started being infinite, at the Big Bang or after? JFB80 (talk) 18:43, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

The short answer is that if it's infinite now, it was infinite all the way back to the Planck epoch. Whether it's infinite at all is an open question (people have been looking for signs in the cosmic microwave background showing that it wraps around, but haven't found these signatures yet). What happened during the Planck epoch is also an open question; whether the universe started with an infinite volume or finite volume during that time is unknown (we'd need a correct theory of quantum gravity to tell). --Christopher Thomas (talk) 19:25, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. I find the possibility of the infinite beginning interesting because the picture is then entirely different to that commonly assumed of an infinite density within an infinitesimal volume - an explosion in the usual sense (see e.g the contributor in the above section 'the expansion of the universe').JFB80 (talk) 09:37, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Black body wording

At the end of the introduction, the phrase

"its spectrum (i.e., the amount of radiation measured at each wavelength) sketched out a blackbody curve,"

sounds a little odd. Would the following not be better?

"its spectrum (i.e., the amount of radiation measured at each wavelength) was shown to be that of a blackbody" Mike6828 (talk) 06:57, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I've adjusted the text per your suggestion. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 07:14, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks very much - that was quick! Mike6828 (talk) 07:31, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Hubble Expansion

Perhaps attention to expansion (Big Expansion) of manifold (3-surface) of 'universe' , and not just the quantum fire works, which we refer to as Big Bang, should be emphasized.12.72.150.145 (talk) 22:14, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

ummm...

i am supposed to find the observable and testable parts of the big bang for a paper for school. and as far as i can tell, there is none... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.231.28.194 (talk) 19:58, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation should help, but this is not the point of the talk pages. It is supposed to be for article improvement only so please direct further questions of this nature to a science forum. Thank you.Farsight001 (talk) 20:16, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

There's a whole section in the article on Observational evidence. That's probably a good place to start. Gandalf61 (talk) 16:10, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 206.207.225.20, 19 November 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} I am requesting that the phrase "decelerate" be changed to accelerate negatively due to the fact that in physics there is no such thing as deceleration, merely acceleration negatively. You can refer to any established physics source on the validity of this.

206.207.225.20 (talk) 18:43, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

The purpose of the article is to explain the Big Bang to non-physicists. The word "decelerate" conveys the correct impression, and is far more understandable than "accelerate negatively", so I'd be against this proposed change. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 19:16, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

It's actually a negative jerk anyway. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:34, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

So far, so good

Just want to say that, though this article may need further development for scientific accuracy, as it stands, it is still one of the best-written scientific pages on Wikipedia. I would point to this one as a model for article authors writing about science or highly technical subjects. rowley (talk) 22:00, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes. Some articles in Wikipedia are really good. In order to get an estimate of the quality one can generally take a look at the quality assessment uppermost on the talk page. Featured and Good Articles (GA) can generally be relied upon. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 17:04, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Missing!

Missing: alternative theories. A See also would do. While Big Bang is the theory with most adherents, there are serious alternatives trying to solve scientific problems. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 17:04, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Only partially. What I'm after is partially reflected in Speculative physics beyond Big Bang theory. A See also would still be profitable. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 17:27, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

There's already a "speculative physics beyond the big bang" section. I've also added a "see also" section with a link to Non-standard cosmology. That should be sufficient, as as far as I can tell, there are no other models that would pass WP:UNDUE for substantial mention. There really is an overwhelming scientific consensus that the Big Bang or something very much like it occurred. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 19:31, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Not sure what Rursus is referring to, but non-standard cosmologies are such a vanishingly small minority that they are already overly weighted in our current article (and linked to in the Big Bang#Features, issues and problems section). If you, Rursus, could point us to the sources for the serious alternatives that you have in mind including, I'd be grateful. Preferably, the sources should be from PRD, PRL, ApJ, MNRAS, or A&A, for example. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:22, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

False opening

The first sentence is currently: "The Big Bang was the event which led to the formation of the universe, according to the prevailing cosmological theory of the universe's early development (known as the Big Bang theory or Big Bang model). "

This is false in presenting such an "event" as an established fact. There is no scientific consensus supporting this claim.

As has been pointed out by several (including me) in the past, the fundamental problem with this page that is causing this error is the eliding of the difference between Big Bang Theory (scientifically valid) and the Big Bang "event" (scientifically dubious, but popularly believed to be a scientific fact).

Years are passing by and this page continues to dramatically mislead people. Willbown (talk) 09:41, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

But only a few months has passed since you proposed this last time and others discussed this matter with you. I can see no consensus in Talk:Big Bang/Archive 23#Misleading opening. --Fama Clamosa (talk) 10:37, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with the clause "according to the prevailing cosmological theory". Note theory in this clause. This page serves to explain the widely-established theory of the Big Bang hypothesis while avoiding confirming it as fact. Overall this is an excellent article. Careful With That Axe, Eugene ^Hello... 10:58, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

One problem I see, is that the Big Bang theory is not a theory about the big bang. It is a theory of the evolution of the (early) universe, which is characterized by the implication of an initial singularity. However, as far the theory is concerned it doesn't really matter if there was an initial singularity or not. "Big Bang theory" is just a name for the theory, to distinguish the theory from other cosmological models like the steady state model. This problem is exemplified by the fact that people generally do not agree what the term "Big Bang" refers to (some take it to mean initial singularity, others tale it to refer to the phase of the development of universe running approximately from reheating at the end of inflation to decoupling and production of the CMB.). In contrast there is much less confusion to what the "Big Bang model/theory" is.

As such, I still think a lot of trouble can be avoided by simply calling this article Big Bang theory. People have argued against this by saying the evolution also isn't called theory of evolution. To them I would like to note that the articles string theory and quantum field theory are not called string and quantum field. The reason for this is that while the central ingredients of these theories are strings and quantum fields, the theory as a whole has a broader scope. I would argue that the same thing holds for the Big Bang theory.TimothyRias (talk) 11:28, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Responses to the above:

• FamaClamosa I've learnt my lesson from the previous episode. I'm not proposing anything here. That is counterproductive. All I'm doing is pointing out that the article remains fundamentally flawed. The question is whether you are content to leave it that way.

• Eugene, you are mistaken in believing the prevaling cosmological theory includes the "event" of the Big Bang. It doesn't. Hence your conclusion is invalid. And hence overall this article is extremely misleading.

• TomothyRias Renaming this article Big Bang Theory and having a separate section or article on the Big Bang "event" would be one solution, yes.

Willbown (talk) 18:03, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Willbown: This is a featured article and this talk page is to discuss how that article can improve. The article is already saying this is a scientific theory regarding an event. Is there a point underlining "theory" even more? If you want anything changed bring your references. --Fama Clamosa (talk) 18:57, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Fama Clamosa: References? It's not me that is making unsupported claims, it is the first sentence of this article. But you have missed the point. It is not that the "event" is part of a theory. Quite the reverse. The sentence asserts that the scientific theory says the "event" really occurred. It doesn't. The fact that this is as you say a featured article just makes the failure worse. In fact, on pretty much the 10th anniversary, it kind of proves that Wikipedia doesn't work - this page is locked in a vortex of falsehood from which it seems it is impossible to escape. Willbown (talk) 22:19, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Can you explain to us the logic of how proclaiming that Wikipedia is a complete failure is supposed to convince everyone here that your position is correct? I mean, if your claim is correct, then providing references to support your claims would be a very easy thing to do. But to proclaim that this page is "locked in a vortex of falsehood" simply because other editors want to see some supporting references seems like a childish cop-out.--Mr Fink (talk) 22:30, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Per policy, the lede (which includes the first sentence) is ideally unreferenced. The lede is supposed to summarize the rest of the article and it is the rest of the article in which the relevant sources reside. And since when did the theory not say the event really occured? What's the other option - that it says it didn't occur?Farsight001 (talk) 22:32, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

If something in the lede is likely to be disputed, then a citation can be very helpful. bobrayner (talk) 22:49, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

It is irrelevant for the theory if the event (if you mean by this the initial singularity) occurred our not, since the theory is not about the initial singularity, but the period following it.TimothyRias (talk) 22:51, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Responses to the above:

• Farsight is correct. The lead should summarise what is in the body of the article, which is where the references should be, especially on a page this big. To then add my point - and there isn't anything in the body of the article to support the assertion made in the lead.

• TimothyRias is correct on the substantive point, contrary to what the lead states, the theory itself is not concerned with whether an initial "event" ever occurred. (A good place for editors to consult on this is the introduction to the theory maintained by the University of Cambridge physics department at http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/research/gr/public/bb_home.html)

• Now that we have had this discussion, is there anybody left here who is prepared to argue that the lead is *not* a falsehood?

Willbown (talk) 03:35, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, I'll step up to the plate and say that I certainly don't agree that the current lead is a falsehood - at worst, it is an over-simplification. I see some merit in TimothyRias's suggestion of side-stepping the problem by renaming the article to Big Bang theory, which is what most of its content is about anyway. But, as mentioned above, a formal move proposal made a few months ago (Talk:Big_Bang/Archive_23#Requested_Move) was rejected, and editors generally don't being like being repeatedly polled about the same issue. Willbown, you will improve your chances of convincing others that you have a valid point if you tone down the rhetoric and avoid phrases like "dramatically mislead", "fundamentally flawed" and "vortex of falsehood". Gandalf61 (talk) 14:01, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Gandalf61 I'm sure you're right that a milder tone would make editors here more pliable on this specific point. But it wouldn't reflect my view of the seriousness of the problems. So, to return to the substantive issue at hand, perhaps you could clarify whether you believe the lead needs revising or not? Willbown (talk) 22:42, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

No, I don't feel that the opening sentence of the lead needs revising. It is a simplified statement, but I don't see a way to make it more precise without also making it cluttered, baroque and opaque, with a net loss in quality. On the other hand, if someone wishes to propose a new version, I will consider it with an open mind. Gandalf61 (talk) 11:21, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm all in favour of simple language, but there is no reason for such language to lead to falsehood. The lead makes an assertion that can be either true or false - and if it is false then it must be revised.

Let me put the substantive issue in layman's language. This is (at least according to the title and lead) a page about the origin of the universe. The lead asserts that science has come to a conclusion about that origin. It says that science tells us the universe began in an "event" called the Big Bang. This is not true. Science does not claim that. How much more false can you get?

As has been pointed out above, at Wikipedia the lead should not be the place for arguments about sources. It should reflect what is established in the body of the article. So at this point, the onus is on you to show how the body of the article supports the assertion made in the lead. As I've said, I've looked and in my opinion it doesn't. Willbown (talk) 14:24, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

• OK. No response from Gandalf61. So I repeat my question. Now that we have had this discussion, is there anybody left here who is prepared to argue that the lead is *not* a falsehood? Willbown (talk) 20:47, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I would welcome your suggested amended wording. Hopefully consensus could coalesce around something less ambiguous - what did you have in mind, specifically? Careful With That Axe, Eugene ^Hello... 09:36, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

1. At this point we don't have anybody prepared to argue the lead is either true or supported by the body of the article. I think therefore we can all agree that the lead is accepted as containing a falsehood.

2. How did that happen on what is supposed to be one of Wikipedia's best pages? All those who have complained about my strong language now need to consider whether my tone is in fact justified.

3. In my view, the confusion of the lead just reflects a persistent confusion that threads itself through this page - and the ever-changing list of people editing it. Fixing the lead will not fix these deeper problems.

4. Personally, I favour the suggestion of TimothyRias that this article be split into two, one dealing with the scientific theory and one with the "event". It has been said here that the senior editors who make these decisions don't like being asked twice. But these Wikipedia generals need to take some responsibility for the fact that their last decision failed to fix the problems.

5. Even though I know all the guidance is against it, I would even go so far as to argue that users typing in "Big Bang" should be directed to a disambiguation page. This is a special case because of the degree of confusion amongst ordinary people coming to the page.

6. Sorry Eugene, for the reasons set out above I have no interest in lengthy discussions over fine tuning the lead by itself, though I'm happy for others to get on with that.Willbown (talk) 14:45, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I don't think that the current lead is patently false. There are some issues with the first sentence. It maybe misleading, and it reflects a specific POV of what is meant by the term 'Big Bang'. But is it patently false? I don't really think so. (Also being ignored on wikipedia, doesn't mean that you are right).TimothyRias (talk) 15:05, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

The trouble is not merely that it contains a point of view. The trouble is that it asserts that science has validated that point of view. If I can't convince you, TimothyRias, then I will give up. Willbown (talk) 16:46, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

OK. I do give up. Just to conclude, even allowing for TimothyRias's comment that silence on Wikipedia does not signal assent, it is striking that no one has really engaged fully in the discussion of whether the lead is false or not. Sadly, I feel completely vindicated in my opinion that this page is trapped in a vortex of falsehood. Good luck. Willbown (talk) 11:14, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

This discussion being ignored, has a lot to do with use of ridiculous hyperbole like "vortex of falsehood". For many users, use of that kind of rhetoric is an indication, that a discussion will in likelihood not be productive.TimothyRias (talk) 11:31, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Willnown's rhetoric and combative stance have certainly suggested to me that further discussion in this thread is a waste of my time (but right now I am feeling generous ...). Gandalf61 (talk) 15:53, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Accessibility

While I appreciate the rigor of this article, it could perhaps be more accessible to the layman. I see a tendency to plunge into details whilst the big picture is left somewhat unclear. For example, several of the questions I came to the article with don't appear to be addressed. What, if anything, is thought to have preceded the big bang? Were it possible go back 20 billion years in time, what, according to the prevailing theory, would we find--a total void state? The non-existence of any reality whatsoever? And if so, what is thought to have precipitated the big bang, if anything? Or is the super-concentrated singularity thought to have persisted for unknown billions of years before it began expanding? These seem to me reasonable (and reasonably common) questions - if anyone could address them it would be appreciated. Even if there is no prevailing theory about these matters, it would be helpful if the article noted as much.Sylvain1972 (talk) 18:32, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

There is one important line in the lead section that addresses some of this: "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; rather, it describes and explains the general evolution of the universe since that instant." I think the problem is science in general does not and possibly cannot address the questions you are asking. I am not sure if there are sources around that tackle these questions, but if so, it probably merits a separate article. –CWenger (talk) 19:10, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I guess I missed that.Sylvain1972 (talk) 20:16, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Big Bang definition needs a citation or reference

This article needs an explicit reference for where its Big Bang description is derived.

While much of the evidence in the article is referenced, the overall definition, the primary ideas of the first paragraph has no reference. Check all the references 1 through 6. The closest is the CERN description, but that is really more of a story than a scientific description or hypothesis.

The reason I raise this is the news -- "The world’s most widely respected astrophysics organization, the International Astronomical Union (or IAU), has affirmed that it has no definition for any Big Bang model." If IAU has no definition, what authority does?

As the peer-reviewed paper published by Astronomical Society of the Pacific, points out - there is no scientific definition for a Big Bang model, let alone an agreed upon definition.

"Ground Rules for Cosmological Physics" http://cosmologyscience.com/cosblog/?page_id=165

(direct link) http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009ASPC..413..128D

IAU has no definition for any Big Bang model -- http://cosmologyscience.com/cosblog/?p=66#more-66 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.81.29.174 (talk) 21:10, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

So either fix it or go away. You made your point. Nobody agrees. The ball is in your court to edit the lede or be quiet about it.Desoto10 (talk) 03:59, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

The first paragraph or so is supposed to summarize the rest of the article. Hence, it is ideally without sources, as the citations would be below in the body of the article.Farsight001 (talk) 04:19, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

It's a good rule of thumb, not an iron law, that the lede should be unreferenced because it is merely summarising referenced content further down the article. However, if a key point is controversial or highly disputed, then a reference can be very helpful. bobrayner (talk) 14:05, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Presented as fact, not as a theory

This thread went inactive in 2010. Please start a new thread instead of adding to this one.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I may be wrong, and correct me if so, but it seems to me that while the article states in a few places that it is a theory, the overall attitude of the article is that the Big Bang theory is scientific fact. This is incorrect; while there is evidence for the theory, it has not been conclusively proven, and I think the article should possibly be changed to reflect. Gorillazx1 (talk) 21:58, 10 May 2010 (UTC) Fact versus theory distinction is a misnomer. Please read scientific theory. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:23, 10 May 2010 (UTC) In scientific parlance, a "theory" is considered to be a "fact" (ie, it has been proven to conform with empirical evidence). What I'd like to know is, why on Earth has this article been (re)named "Big Bang", rather than "Big Bang theory"? nagualdesign (talk) 16:45, 30 June 2010 (UTC) In scientific parlance, a (scientific) theory describes and explains the mechanics and nature of either a particular natural phenomenon, or a series of related phenomena. For convenience's sake, the theory is usually named after the phenomenon/phenomena it describes and explains. Ergo, in Wikipedia, in order to save time, trouble and server space, the page "Big Bang" is used to talk about both the theory and phenomenon. That, and "Big Bang Theory" is already preoccupied by the sitcom of the same name.--Mr Fink (talk) 01:18, 1 July 2010 (UTC) But the Big Bang theory is just that. A theory. Doesn't matter if science has a way of making it seem a fact, it's still just a THEORY and is still debated to this day. Plus there are holes everywhere. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.142.233.4 (talk) 10:06, 28 August 2010 (UTC) Sure. And it's stated in the article. A. di M. (talk) 15:55, 28 August 2010 (UTC) But in science a theory isn't what most people think a theory is. A theory in science is an explanation for natural phenomena, as has already been stated. Think about it this way: gravity is "just a theory". Atomic Theory is "just a theory". The Theory of Gravity has a HUGE hole in it, "How exactly does it work?!" We don't know how gravity works, or what causes it. We just know that it's there, and it's very weak. So are you going to use your "just a theory" idea to disprove the possibility of gravity? — Preceding unsigned comment added by SaiferPhoenix (talk • contribs) 01:42, 15 March 2011 (UTC) Of course, gravity is "just a theory" too. After all, everything we use to explain what we see is "just a theory". In the gravity example, the only scientific fact of gravity is that objects move towards each other. Anything beyond that, however obvious it may seem, is "just a theory". With all the evidence we have for the big bang theory, as long as it doesn't actually say that it is scientific fact, what it says is within the definition of a theory. The article, after all is describing the theory, and all statements made in the article are describing the theory, and it is clearly stated that it is the theory that is being described. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.80.187.148 (talk) 19:02, 26 October 2010 (UTC) Now this is a discussion gone awry indeed. As far as I can interpret Gorillazx1's comment, the article serves a theory as if it is an undisputed fact, not a theory that has some weaknesses, and deserves some doubts in order to balance the article. The fact vs. theory discussion is some philosophical stuff that doesn't belong to here. The issue was not about creationism vs. science, the issue was that the article didn't balance insecurity and the unknown (the "mystic of science") properly against what can be known for very certain. Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 16:52, 22 November 2010 (UTC) Sources that illustrate what you and your fellow-travelers are trying to get across would help. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:25, 22 November 2010 (UTC) I JUST WANT TO SAY THAT IF WE BELEVE THE BIG BAND MODEL THEN IT WAS IMORTANT TO THINK THAT THERE IS ALSO SOME POSSIBILITY THAT OUR EARTH & OTHER PLANETS ARE ALSO EXPANDING.... AND THEN IT MAY BE THE MAIN REASON OF SLIDING OF PLATES WHICH CAUSE "EARTH QUAKE".. THINK ABOUT IT........ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.111.125.118 (talk) 17:28, 22 November 2010 (UTC) 1. I think there are easier explanations for that, see earthquake, 2. we're only discussing the article Big Bang here, not Big Bang in itself, 3. on the left side of your keyboard, there's a big key with the label "CapsLock", try that one. Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 18:02, 22 November 2010 (UTC) The above claims about what the word "theory" really means are entirely wrong-headed. The truth is that in scientific parlance the word "theory" is used in two utterly distinct ways: 1) A hypothesis that has not been proven, and 2) a large body of thought that has been shown by massive evidence to be true (such as the theory of evolution, the theory of relativity, number theory).Daqu (talk) 08:21, 27 November 2010 (UTC) Expanding Earth theory has been pondered and debunked long ago. Also, it has nothing to do with the big bang anyway, which speaks of the change of the universe itself.Farsight001 (talk) 02:33, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Consensus is that the current title is better. Dpmuk (talk) 13:05, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

---

}}

Big Bang → Big Bang theory — With some apprehension I'm rerequesting this move. The previous request ended in no consensus. However, I strongly feel that Big Bang theory is a more suitable name for this article. My primary reason for this, is that the subject is that main subject of this article is the "Big Bang theory". That is, the idea (well supported by observation)that the evolution of the universe is well described by an expanding FLRW metric, in particular the universe is (to good approximation) homogeneous and isotropic, and its matter content is well approximated (at cosmological scales) by a multi-component perfect fluid.

The name of this theory historical precedes the naming of an event as "the Big Bang". In fact, there is no general consensus as to what event should be referred to as "the Big Bang". The current naming of this article as Big Bang brings this article in an awkward position of having to define "the Big Bang" in the first sentence, when no conclusive definition exists in the literature. No such problem occurs when the article is named Big Bang theory.

If this article continues to be called big bang, then it needs to be substantially rewritten, since at the moment it does not adequately address what is meant by the term "big bang".TR 09:49, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Rebuttal of previous objections

I'll respond to some previous objections raised: (paraphrasing them concisely, feel free disagree with my summary)

• The article on evolution is called evolution not Theory of evolution.

  Well the article on "quantum field theory" is called quantum field theory not quantum field and the article on "string theory" is called string theory not string. The reason is that those article are (like this one) about the theories rather than the characteristic objects for which the theories are named.TR 09:49, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

• per WP:UCN

  I've seen no evidence that the use of "Big Bang" is more came than "Big Bang theory" to describe this theory. The use of the phrase "Big Bang theory" in the title of a popular sitcom, actually has made the phrase "Big Bang theory" slightly more common on the internet than the phrase "Big Bang" not followed by "theory". (At least according to google, "Big Bang theory" has about 53 million hits, while "big bang" has about 104 million hits, implying that it used only 51 million times without being followed by theory. For whatever thats worth.) TR 09:49, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

You do really need to put the quotes into the google search, "big bang" gave me 63 million hits "big bang theory" 27 million hits. Without the quotes it can find the words in different order or scattered around a page or missing one word. Dmcq (talk) 15:24, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I know that. Which is why that is exactly what I did. Google results can vary for other reasons. Such as location (especially since google deployed it anti content farm measures on the US servers bot not in the rest of the world) or even the order in which you do searches. Anyway within the (obviously big) error margins of a crude google test, the result is the same "big bang theory" accounts for half of the "big bang" hits.TR 07:07, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

That is strange. When I tried google with co.uk it gave 39 million for 'Big Bang Theory' and the .com gave 27 million. It must be saying it is more popular in the UK than America! Anyway there's no reason to call this article the same as a sitcom just because it has blighted over half the search results. Dmcq (talk) 08:36, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

• Calling the article big bang theory, suggests that the idea is in doubt.

  This is just weird misconception of the use of the term theory. A theory simply is a body of scientific work surrounding a particular guiding concept/principle.TR 09:49, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Discussion

I have no problem with this article being renamed. This article deals with the progression of time/energy/matter since the earliest instant, rather than the instant itself. One would not describe a simple series of numbers, for example, by attempting to describe the nature of "zero", although it could be argued that zero is a 'start' point. The Big Bang is a hypothetical concept which is beyond our ken to explain or imagine but the theory of how the universe has progressed since is better described , and it is that which this article is addressing. Support renaming as Big Bang theory. Careful With That Axe, Eugene ^Hello... 10:06, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose. The "theory" is really quite superflouous. Stickee (talk) 10:36, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

  Would your care to elaborate why? At the same time could you give your definition of what you understand the term "big bang" to mean?TR 10:52, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose, TR's arguments make sense, but they also are the same argument as before, and IMO they do not beat the arguments made to keep this article at this location (see previous move requests). Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 10:55, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

  And what arguments would that be? And why aren't they refuted by the rebuttal above? Could you also point to a move discussion that end in consensus for keeping the article at "Big Bang"?TR 11:09, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

  Plowing through the last 5 years of discussion has produced no such consensus.TR 11:27, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

  I did not say they produced consensus one way or the other (although I do recall the last one being unanimous in opposition), I said they failed to convince me to believe that it was a good idea to move the article to "Big Bang theory". Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 11:40, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

  For the record, the last move request was closed as "no consensus". You seem to overlook that in the section preceding that request, four editors agreed that the article should be renamed and one remained neutral.TR 12:34, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

  Could you please elucidate what argument for keeping this article at "Big Bang" you find so convincing? None of the arguments made at the previous discussion really made sense to me. Only the UCN argument made some sense, but that was lacking in evidence that the name "Big Bang" is indeed more common than "Big Bang theory".

  Note, that I'm not trying to be argumentative here. Instead, I'm trying to spark a proper discussion, such that proper consensus can be reached, eitherway.TR 12:13, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose. Why would the addition of "theory" make an explanation of "Big Bang" redundant. If the theory does not describe this primordial "explosion" it is OR to add it to the article. --Fama Clamosa (talk) 11:22, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

  This is a common misconception. The "Big Bang theory" is not the "theory of the Big Bang". Rather it is a theory of the evolution of the universe, one of the implications of which is that the universe must have started in a hot rapidly expanding state, which became the feature for which the theory was named. It was however never precisely clear what feature of the theory was to be called the Big Bang (the initial singularity? the rapidly expanding phase that followed it? when that it end?), nor was this ever a truly relevant question, since "big bang theory" was just a name, to distinguish it from competing theories (at the time) like steady-state.TR 11:33, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

  Misconception or not: this is a theory that is known as "Big Bang". Wikipedia should not add "theory" to all articles on scientific theories. The article is addressing this "theory"/"model" issue in the opening sentence. If there is a discussion in the scientific community regarding the importance of adding "theory" to "Big Bang", then bring us those references. And again, why would adding "theory" to the article name make it more clear that the "cosmic explosion" is just hypothetical. --Fama Clamosa (talk) 12:05, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

  1) Could you provide a source for the claim that this theory is known as "Big Bang". (All sources I see simply talk of the "big bang theory" or "big bang model".)

  2) I'm not arguing that Wikipedia, should add theory to all articles on scientific theories. However, it is appropriate when that is the common name of the theory. You however seem to be arguing that we should always drop the theory. Would you propose that we move Steady State theory to steady state, quantum field theory to quantum field and string theory to string?

  3) Adding "theory" to the title would not make it more clear that the "cosmic explosion" is just hypothetical. Nor is that intention of this request. Nor do I understand how you inferred that that was the intention.

  4) In this specific case, calling the article Big Bang theory, avoids having to say what is meant by "the Big Bang" in the opening sentence. The current opening sentence is problematic, because it represents a particular POV on what should be called "the Big Bang".TR 12:27, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

(1) Just have a look at the article. "Theory" (etcetera) is simply added to "Big Bang" to avoid confusion, not to make a distinction. (2) Apparently those are the names used for those theories (BTW, steady state/quantum field). (3) The "Big Bang theory" is not the "theory of the Big Bang".-- isn't this the reason you want to add "theory"? (4) Of course the article should describe what the "Big Bang" is. If there are several interpretations/no consensus, this should of course be explained. Are you saying that by adding "theory" to the title we can "hide" the "event problem" in the third section or so? --Fama Clamosa (talk) 18:33, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose "Big Bang" is shorter and frequently used to refer to the concept detailed here. 184.144.160.156 (talk) 13:21, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose The usage I commonly hear or read from other astronomers, referring to the theory both formally and informally, is not "big bang theory," but "big bang model" or "big bang cosmology." Besides, this article specifically says it is about the event known as the "big bang," and that is the common usage even by professional astronomers.Astrocog (talk) 14:17, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

  From my experience "big bang theory"/"big bang model"/"big bang cosmology" are pretty much used interchangebly, however mostly with such an addition if one is referring to the theory/model. But, so what event do astronomers mean (in your opinion) when they talk about "the Big Bang"? My experience is that they can mean one of several events or processes.TR 14:51, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose I don't know why people trying to write an article into a title. The title is a search key by which it is normally known. It isn't the article. Dmcq (talk) 15:17, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose Pretty much what Dmcq says. --Six words (talk) 15:46, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose per Dmcq and others. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 19:46, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose—Per WP:TITLE: Conciseness - shorter titles are generally preferred to longer ones; Naturalness - titles are expected to use names and terms that readers are most likely to look for in order to find the article.—RJH (talk) 22:26, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose As mentioned above, the Big Bang refers to an event, "The Big Bang was the event which led to the formation of the universe", an event isn't a theory, a theory describes or predicates an event etc, the Models that predict the Big Bang. IRWolfie- (talk) 19:17, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

  The only reason that sentence is there, is because of the current title of the article is Big Bang. Nowhere else does the article talk about the big bang is an event. In fact the rest of the article is manifestly about the big bang theory/model/cosmology. This inconsistency has led to confusion with various readers, and is part of the reason why I suggest we rename the article.TR 20:45, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

  Check out the new Discover Magazine, that recently came out, which calls it "Big Bang". -- a popular science magazine, not a scholarly magazine. 65.93.13.60 (talk) 04:55, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Hoyle

The reference to Hoyle should be linked to the Fred Hoyle page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.65.82.66 (talk) on 19:00, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Evolution

This article uses the word evolution a few times to describe the development of galaxies after the Big Bang. While I agree its technical use is correct, it seems to me that it just furthers the misconception that the Big Bang is part of the theory of evolution. Is there any way we can change this? Harutsedo2 (talk) 15:07, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

The term "evolution" is widely used in astronomy and astrophysics ("stellar evolution" being one of the most common contexts). I don't think this is confusing enough to justify removing the term from this article, given that it's widely used in the field. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 19:37, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Citation needed, really?

The article claims that the Big Bang is prevailing, but someone added a [citation needed], template call. Isn't that pretty ridiculous in the intro? While the article have a "religious interpretations" section, it would be well served by a section with some small comparisons with competing cosmologies, to demonstrate the relative longevity and stability of the Big-Bang-Theory-with-the-Alan-Guth-Inflation-Extension. Then such a [citation needed] could easily be dismissed by a simple "RTFA!" Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 13:21, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Big Bang - features, issues and problems

Stickee, I see you reverted my edit with the reasonable message that my points had already been addressed elsewhere in the article. I had written the following:

The first problems to consider are what actually triggered the Big Bang and where did the energy (and subsequent matter), spacetime and fundamental forces actually originate from. This is not yet understood.

Although the closest I could find to anything I had mentioned was in the section 'Speculative physics beyond Big Bang theory' with regard to brane cosmology models (unless you are referring to something else in the article that I missed) however brane cosmology models don't explain the origin of energy/matter and spacetime (or strings) as far as I am aware. I understand that this talk page isn't the place to discuss how anyone thinks the universe might have begun (and I don't intend to), but I feel it is fair to state in the article simply that it is unknown how the energy and spacetime from the big bang came into existence - it is very much relevant to the topic.

I just wanted an opportunity to discuss this before considering putting anything back in the article (which I wasn't planning on doing in a reactionary manner). Thanks CharlesC (talk) 00:19, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I do see where you're coming from. But to quote Stephen Hawking, "Anything that happened before the big bang could not affect what happened after". To attempt to find out what happened before the Big Bang is both impossible and pointless. So I guess a better paragraph to include would be one stating how what happened beforehand is unknowable. Your thoughts? Stickee (talk) 00:59, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I considered modifying or reverting your addition, but held off because I'm on semi-sabbatical and someone else would likely vet it after me (as was the case). Your statements about the energy content being controversial don't reflect the views of the scientific community, as far as I've seen. First, there are scenarios where the gravitational potential energy and mass energy of the universe exactly cancel; this gives the universe a net energy of zero, which - while not required - is an attractive interpretation. Second, conservation of energy is a local effect. The universe taken as a whole isn't required to conserve it (or any other conserved quantity), so to have it come into existence with net energy doesn't invalidate the model.

Third, the "big bang" as a theoretical model generally doesn't include the instant at which everything came into existence; in scientific circles, it actually refers to the evolution of the universe from the time it was at the Planck temperature onwards (as we don't know what physical laws apply at the Planck temperature, other than that our low-temperature description of gravity as a non-quantized force stops working properly). So, both the mechanism of creation and any violation of normally-conserved numbers that occurred at that time are out of the scope of the scientific use of the term, at least.

Popular media uses the term "big bang" to refer to the instant of creation, and that's sometimes used as a shorthand by scientists (when they're more accurately referring to "time since the Planck epoch"). However, the article already made this distinction clear last time I did a detailed check of it. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 01:14, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

to add to that, to use the most 'pure' interpretation of WP:OR (in, i will admit, a semi-tongue-in-cheek manner), absolutely everything before the planck temperature is original research, in the sense that we literally cannot know what happened before this point. we can speculate, but that does no good as far as wikipedia is concerned. we can certainly report what others speculate in peer-reviewed journals with regards to what happened before then, though. Kaini (talk) 04:05, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

It seems the Bang is still Banging, according to recent articles on dark matter, showing that the universe is still expanding. Brian Pearson (talk)

Lemaitre's position

As Lemaitre's title of Monsignor is given before his name I don't think it's necessary to mention the fact that he was a priest in the same sentence. In any case the fact that he was a priest is irrelevant to his work on the Big Bang theory: he did that in his capacity as a professor of physics. He was also a qualified artillery officer, but I don't see any reason why that needs to be mentioned. FergusM1970 (talk) 18:00, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Any theory of the Big Bang obviously has religous implications. And not everyone will know what the title of Monsignor means. And most sources on Lemaitre and the BB do mention his religion. -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 18:06, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't see any religious implications to the Big Bang theory, and the fact is that Lemaitre's position at the university was that of part-time physics lecturer. The Big Bang theory is purely scientific and contains no supernaturalism or christian dogma, and I don't see how it was in any way influenced by the fact that Lemaitre was a priest. In any case this isn't an article on Lemaitre; it's an article on the Big Bang theory. The article on Lemaitre DOES discuss his religion, quite extensively, but I don't see how it's relevant here. FergusM1970 (talk) 18:16, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Others can see the relevance, which is why most popular sources on the BB that mention Lemaitre's role will also mention that he was a priest. If it really is that irrelevant then we should remove his title as well. -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 18:19, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

What is the relevance of Lemaitre's being a priest to the Big Bang theory? FergusM1970 (talk) 18:34, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

It's relevant to the development and acceptance of the big bang theory. Atheists originally rejected the concept, believing it pointed to the existence of a God. The big bang theory itself has nothing to say about religion. However, social commentary on it and personal perspectives about it lean heavily on theistic issues.Farsight001 (talk) 21:03, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Farsight001. Note that FergusM1970 turned the implication around, to render it nonsensical. Would be readers be interested in this? Apparently they are, since sources outside WP mention this a lot. We just reflect that interest here. -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 21:21, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm reverting the descriptive of being a priest. Totally irrelevant. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 21:18, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it is to be expected that OM would see things in a totally black-and-white fashion. -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 21:21, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

And yes, you fail to read WP:NPA. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 21:22, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Still swearing in your edit comments, I see. How childish. Please address the issues raised above, rather than making snap judgements that add nothing to the discussion. -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 21:30, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Fuck me. Did I offend you? I'm so fucking sorry. I make no snap judgements. For many years, I reject the premise that science has anything to do with religion. Nevertheless, and despite your continue personal attacks, that he was a priest is totally irrelevant to what he did. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 22:41, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Not paying attention, are we? You, like Fergus, have the implication the wrong way around. -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 22:54, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I favor including that he was a priest. It is just a couple extra words and at the very least there is some indirect relevance. People will find it interesting and I don't see the harm. Also I personally did not know what Monsignor meant. –CWenger (^ • @) 21:43, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I endorse the non-priest version in place as of 21:19. Prof. Lemaitre was acting in his capacity as a physics professor, not as a priest, when developing the model. Having him referred to as a priest in the old version of the lede was jarring at best, and at worst gave the implication that religion played a significant part in development of the model. Removing it improves the article. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 21:54, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

In that case Monsignor should be removed as well, unless we are counting on our readers being ignorant of what that means (like I was, to be fair)? –CWenger (^ • @) 22:00, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Monsignor is a courtesy title these days, though not giving a shit about Catholicism, I have no clue if it was 70 years ago. Nevertheless, he was a physicist who happened to be a priest. Technically, genetics was "founded" by Gregor Mendel, to whom full credit is given on Wikipedia. But the genetics article, just mentions his name, not "Brother Gregor Mendel, a Franciscan Augustinian Monk." OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 22:46, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Actually the genetic article mentions that he was a "a German-Czech Augustinian monk and scientist who studied the nature of inheritance in plants." No doubt some asshole will feel compelled to remove that now, just in case the article gets too accessible to the lay reader. -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 22:58, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

...and the heredity article says "... Moravian monk Gregor Mendel ...". Gandalf61 (talk) 14:16, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Also, in that case, we should not report anybody's religion, for fear someone may think, heavens forbid, that it may have influenced their work. And of course we know that is never the case, don't we? -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 22:05, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

(I've just come here following a notice on WT:PHYS.) I'd prefer to keep it per Farsight001 (also, in more recent times some people have rejected the Big Bang model because they think it is somehow incompatible with the Christian faith, and mentioning that Lemaitre was a priest would immediately show them how ridiculous their position is), even if I disagree with part of what Michael Prince says. I can live with not saying “priest” if consensus emerges for that, but in that case we shouldn't say “Monsignor” either, per CWenger. ― A. di M.​_plé​^dréachtaí 22:35, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

There isn't any evidence that religion DID influence Lemaitre's theory and the original sentence described him ONLY as a priest, not mentioning his actual qualifications. My opinion is that the fact Lemaitre was a priest is irrelevant. It wasn't Lemaitre the priest that formulated the Big Bang theory; it was Lemaitre the scientist. Anyway, his religious background is covered extensively in his own article and I think mentioning it here just gives undue weight to something that has nothing to do with the theory. FergusM1970 (talk) 23:45, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Stop being economical with the truth, Fergus. I merged the sentences so that it said he was a priest and a scientist, and you reverted that. -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 07:43, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Economical with the truth? Hardly. I clearly stated that the ORIGINAL sentence only said he was a priest. Your edit, which I reverted, again placed "priest" before "scientist" and I feel this is inappropriate. You explained that edit by asking me to show both sides, and there aren't two sides here. Lemaitre was a physicist who developed a theory of physics. FergusM1970 (talk) 13:59, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Economical with the truth means exactly that. Start debating honestly, please. -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 22:07, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I have already made clear that I was NOT being economical with the truth, as I was describing the ORIGINAL SENTENCE and not what you wrote, so you can stop accusing me of dishonesty right now. Do you make a habit of personal attacks on everyone who disagrees with you? FergusM1970 (talk) 14:11, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Apparently you don't understand what "being economical with the truth" means. -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 19:00, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes I do, and you haven't explained why I'm guilty of it, preferring to make a series of insinuations instead. Grow up. FergusM1970 (talk) 04:02, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Since you claim to understand it, there's no need for an explanation, then, is there? But please explain to us why you you emphasized that the original sentence "described him ONLY as a priest, not mentioning his actual qualifications", yet when I added the required qualifications to it you deleted it? -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 15:10, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Actually it was me who added the required qualifications; you put "priest" back in, and that's what I deleted. Now who's being economical with the truth? Not that it matters; everyone can check the edit history and see who's done what. FergusM1970 (talk) 01:09, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

You deleted the version with just priest in it, reverting back to the science qualifications. I restored the priest title and kept the science qualifications. You complained (above) that only the priest title was present, yet you deleted to the combined entry. So once again, I ask, why was that? -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 08:59, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

I've explained several times already why I did that: the fact that he was a priest as well as a scientist is irrelevant. If he'd written an especially good prayer would anyone care that he was an astronomer? No. So when he develops a theory why does it matter that he was a priest? FergusM1970 (talk) 16:15, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

No, that doesn't explain why you were economical with the truth - but I guess you are never going to answer that, are you? And I have explained that it is not a question of what you feel "matters", but of what readers are interested in. -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 19:57, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Whilst the flame war between you two isn't exactly productive, this - "it is not a question of what you feel "matters", but of what readers are interested in" - is the absolute crux of the matter in my opinion. Kaini (talk) 20:47, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm not interested in a flame war, but Price is repeatedly claiming that I was economical with thr truth, which is clearly not the case. FergusM1970 (talk) 01:57, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

any comments on the latter part of my statement? the content of an article should obviously not be compromised because of the view of an editor or editor(s). Kaini (talk) 02:07, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

One assumes that readers of an article on the Big Bang theory are interested in the Big Bang theory, not on the religious beliefs of a Belgian scientist. I simply don't see why it's relevant, and I particularly don't see why the original version of the article - which I kicked off this fuss by editing - ONLY referred to Lemaitre as a priest and completely missed out his rather extensive RELEVANT qualifications. FergusM1970 (talk) 14:49, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Fergus, the state of the sentence before your first revert is rather irrelevant, since you later deleted a more balanced version. -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 19:13, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

The question isn't really why should this article cite that he was a priest, moreso, why shouldn't it? This is an encyclopaedia and I think that the fact that he is a priest who supports the big bang theory is quite an interesting fact. I can completely envision a scenario where someone notes that fact within this article, follows the link to Lemaitre's article, and finds out more. That scenario would not happen if the fact wasn't mentioned, and if the reader was a person unaware of the meaning to the term 'Monsignor', that scenario would not happen if explicit mention of the fact wasn't included. Kaini (talk) 00:35, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

He's also a Belgian who supported the Big Bang theory. So what? Stressing the fact that he was a priest just gives the impression that this had something to do with the theory. At the very least it should be given less emphasis than the fact that he was a physicist and astronomer, both of which are actually relevant. FergusM1970 (talk) 13:56, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

No, religion had no influence on the Big Bang model itself as far as we know (though we'd need to ask Lemaitre himself to be sure), but it did have notable influence on whether some people accepted it. (Also, I wouldn't revert if someone added “Belgian” to the article, though I wouldn't add it myself.) ― A. di M.​_plé​^dréachtaí 16:35, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

The evidence suggests that religion DIDN'T have any influence on whether or not people accepted it; it's now the accepted scientific concensus and the only people who reject it are christians. The reason many scientists initially rejected it doesn't appear to have been anything to do with it having religious implications; they just thought the maths was wrong. FergusM1970 (talk) 11:24, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) If “the only people who reject it are christians” then religion is not irrelevant. Also, right now the article says “several complained that the beginning of time implied by the Big Bang imported religious concepts into physics”, so if you have evidence that that's wrong you might want to fix it. (Also, I've heard that teaching the Big Bang model in the Soviet Union was forbidden for that reason, but a basic Google search has turned up lots of irrelevant stuff and I can't be bothered to refine it right now.) ― A. di M.​_plé​^dréachtaí 11:49, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I believe that idea of a big crunch (which went hand-in-hand with the BB for awhile) was considered in conflict with dialectical materialism. -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 19:00, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

This is clearly an area that stirs up a fair bit of emotion and a certain relaxation of AGF. I am in favour of the current wording which starts "Monsignor Georges Lemaître" without further detailing his priest role, since this is expanded upon later in the article. I would, however, like to consider splitting "Monsignor" from "Georges Lemaître" and having a separate wikilink to monsignor. This would serve to direct users who are unclear to an article detailing exactly what monsignor means, while hopefully distancing Georges Lemaître, albeit very slightly, from this religious honorific. My suggestion, therefore, is "Monsignor Georges Lemaître, an astronomer and professor of physics...". I thought I would float this here first, rather than join the merry-go-round of edits/reverts. any comments? Careful With That Axe, Eugene ^Hello... 11:21, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea to me. That way anyone who doesn't know what "Monsignor" means can easily find out. FergusM1970 (talk) 11:25, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)In general, having readers have to follow a link to understand a sentence when an explanation can be given in a few words is a bad idea (see WP:LEADLINK); also, this way it's not obvious whether “Monsignor Georges Lemaître” is one or two links for readers whose browsers don't underline each link. ― A. di M.​_plé​^dréachtaí 11:49, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

But readers don't have to know what Monsignor means to understand the sentence, which concerns a professor of physics developing a theory. FergusM1970 (talk) 21:20, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Just to throw in my 2 cents. In the lead, neither the fact that Lemaitre was a priest, nor the fact that he was a professor of physics is really relevant at all, so for the sake of brevity lets just stick to the point and say that "Georges Lemaître proposed what became known as the Big Bang theory of the origin of the universe, he called it his "hypothesis of the primeval atom"." We don't go out of our to comment on the fact Friedman our Hubble, were professors and where,etc. The fact that Lemaitre was a catholic priest is further commented in the body of the article, where it is given sufficient weight.TR 11:45, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I'd say that the fact he was an astronomer and professor of physics is at least somewhat relevant, given what the theory is about. I have no doubt that Lemaitre's research was strongly influenced by his understanding of the physical universe and the forces that act on it, whereas there is little sign that he gave much thought to zombies and talking snakes. FergusM1970 (talk) 14:11, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Is him being an astronomer more relevant, than Friedman being an astronomer?TR 14:22, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Fergus, if you equate religion with zombies and talking snakes, how do expect us to view you as impartial and adhering to NPOV? -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 19:00, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

The bible mentions zombies and talking snakes, among other absurdities. The Big Bang theory sticks to hard science. This distinction is relevant in terms of the Big Bang theory and how Lemaitre came up with it. As for the barbaric idiocy that is christianity I never claimed to be impartial. I'm not. I loathe christianity. So what? This is an article about SCIENCE, not men living inside fish or a drunk fucking his daughters because a "loving" god turned his wife into salt. FergusM1970 (talk) 04:07, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

I rest my case. Clearly you can't edit impartially - which is not the same as having beliefs or a POV, BTW. -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 15:10, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

What does my opinion of christianity have to do with my ability to impartially edit an article on the Big Bang theory? The theory has nothing to do with christianity, so frankly your "logic" escapes me. FergusM1970 (talk) 01:14, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

For example, it influences your ability to impartially make the assertion that the Big Bang theory has nothing with Christianity. The history of the reception of the theory can impossibly be viewed independent of Christianity and that fact that Lemaitre was a priest. Without Lemaitre's priesthood, it is unlikely that the pope would've embraced the theory in 1951. His priesthood also fueled the early accusations from atheists, that the theory was trying to insert creationism into scientific discourse via the back door. Your opinion of Christianity seems make you blind to any such observation.TR 12:26, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

But the Big Bang theory DOESN'T have anything to do with christianity and the pope's opinion of it is exactly as relevant as that of any other totally unqualified laymen. Scientific theories do not require the endorsement of a superstitious old bigot in a dress. FergusM1970 (talk) 14:55, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

The fact, that you can't seem to discuss this in normal terms is another indication that you are not fit to edit this article in an impartial manner. Anyway, no it does not matter for the theory itself what the pope says about. However, the fact that the pope did endorse the theory WAS (extra) reason for people like Hoyle to oppose the theory. You also seem to be under the mistaken perception that the public reception of the theory is not relevant to the wikipedia article about said theory. This show a lack of understanding in what an encyclopedic article is.TR 16:38, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

The place for religious opinions on the theory is in the section about religious opinions on the theory. They are not relevant to the discussion of the theory itself.

Hoyle was a borderline creationist, by the way; he's the one who came up with the ludicrous "747 in a scrapyard" argument against evolution and he also made a fool of himself by claiming that Archaeopteryx was a fraud. I very much doubt that religious support for the Big Bang theory was his reason for disagreeing with it. FergusM1970 (talk) 01:34, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, it should be obvious that many people will not only find it interesting that he was a priest, but will also be interested in his (socio-economic) class, race, (obviously gender), sexual orientation, and his views on equal rights and evolution. Penis size and how often he urinated will be of interest to some. *sigh* I know sarcasm isn't very effective but ... I vote that you leave out the irrelevant. Thesis 1 He was profoundly influenced by his religion and this motivated (or biased) his work. Thesis 2 His work had implications *to him* that were anethema to his religious beliefs. Thesis 3 He viewed his work as separate from his religious beliefs. I don't know which (if any) of these are true. Seems to me that for his priesthood to be relevant, one of these theses (or alternate) needs to be asserted. Way off topic unless I'm missing something? Do we delve into every contributors motives when discussing the results? His title is recognized conventionally by *most* official (governmental) organizations. I believe it is also wili policy to include? Unless implied (ie Dr. or PhD).?? Would it generally be considered polite to include or not? Are we polite or not? cheers71.31.153.56 (talk) 15:27, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

You forgot shoe number! Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 07:43, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Title Change

im an amateur with wikipedia, so my apologies in advance. This is still a Theory, is it not? When spoken in context, most people still call it the Big Bang Theory, right? Should'nt the main page be called "The Big Bang Theory" and not just "Big Bang" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.20.162.142 (talk) 22:25, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

This has previously been discussed in some detail. See this recently archived discussion, for instance. Careful With That Axe, Eugene ^Hello... 09:19, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Daemonstryke, 11 June 2011

id like to edit your page on the big bang theory. it says that its the most factual account of the universes creation and yet ive found an article about an autistic child physicist who has debunked this theory and is working on his own, in effect changing alot of what we've thought to be true for the past 60 years... here is the link for my source http://www.theautismnews.com/2011/03/25/autistic-boy12-with-higher-iq-than-einstein-develops-his-own-theory-of-relativity/

Daemonstryke (talk) 19:06, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

✗ Not done. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence...not a story in the Daily Mail. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 23:10, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Confused about 100%

"Results from the WMAP team in 2008, which combined data from the CMB and other sources, indicate that the Universe today is 73% dark energy, 23% dark matter, 4.6% regular matter and less than 1% neutrinos.[35]"

I've read [35] and I don't see how this citation supports a claim that there is about 101.6% total energy/density. This is all the more amazing since the whole article purports to know what occurred at "Approximately 10^-37 seconds . . . "

Perhaps there needs to be an admission or frequent reiteration that these are estimates + or - a certain amount or within a certain probability range? Just a thought about the need for humility in the face of uncertainty. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.169.71.227 (talk) 04:23, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

The actual error bars on these numbers are smaller than the error implied by the number of significant digits given here. Since the numbers are given with two significant digits their sum can only be expected to equal 100% up to to significant digits, which it does. So, I don't really see you problem.TR 07:33, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I've added "approximately" to indicate that the quoted figures are not exact. Gandalf61 (talk) 08:01, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Infinite Universe

Sockpuppets of Bookworm44

There are a number of scientists today who argue against the Big Bang and instead argue for an Infinite Universe, can we have a criticism section of the Big Bang on the article? Chemistryfan (talk) 18:02, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Do we have sources for these scientists?--Mr Fink (talk) 18:56, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

• Journal of Cosmology, 2010, Vol 6, 1548-1615. Cosmology, January 3, 2010

"The Infinite Universe vs the Myth of the Big Bang: Red Shifts, Black Holes, Acceleration, Life. Rhawn Joseph, Ph.D." Online at: Link 1

• Journal of Cosmology, 2010, Vol 6, 1533-1547. Cosmology, January 30, 2010

"Big Bang? A Critical Review Ashwini Kumar Lal, Ph.D.1, and Rhawn Joseph, Ph.D." Online at Link 2

• David F. Crawford, Ph.D., Sydney Institute for Astronomy, School of Physics, University of Sydney. Journal of Cosmology, Vol 13. 3875-3946.

"Part I: Observational Evidence Favors a Static Universe" Online PDF

• Meta Research Bulletin 11, 6-13 (2002)]

"The Top 30 Problems with the Big Bang" Link 3

• Big Bang Disproved

Link 4

• Plasma Cosmology

Chemistryfan (talk) 00:52, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

It's like a tour-de-force of cosmology cranks. In short, no, these folksies don't belong on the page. Find something published in ApJ, MNRAS, Aj, A&A, etc. and we'll talk.

Incidentally, the Big Bang theory doesn't rule out an "infinite" universe. See eternal inflation which is 100% compatible with the Big Bang. Arguing that the Big Bang is necessarily finite is sooo 1980. 76.119.90.74 (talk) 14:25, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Calling people "cranks" please don't do that. Also Journal of Cosmology have some interesting ideas, they publish papers from many different scientists. For example some of their papers have argued for a Cyclic model others for an eternal inflation etc etc. You seem to be attacking Dr. Joseph (according to your edits) but Joseph says he doesn't mind accepting mini bang events, just not the Big Bang as the start of the universe. The idea of the universe have a beginning is a Catholic doctrine routed in an interpretation of the bible, not science. By the way most eastern scientists argue for the Cyclic cosmology, where Bangs are followed by a Big Crunch in an infinite cycle, but you see the the Bangs they discuss are not the "start" they are a Continuation. Remember that 90% or more of the universe is made of plasma, this matter similar to gas can not be created or destroyed, so it's not scientific to say there was a beginning of the universe, the only people who want a beginning are Catholic and other readers of the Bible who have interpretated Genesis that way, Big Bang is religion not science. Slayerfan1234 (talk) 22:54, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

What the anonymous editor is trying to say is that all of the sources shown here are, at best, not at all notable, and at worst, very disreputable. To feature any of these sources in order to imply or state that a "number of scientists today who argue against the Big Bang" would be giving undue weight to a fringe minority. As for your talk about conflating the Big Bang with religion, please the boiler plate at the top of this page.--Mr Fink (talk) 00:14, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

New Big Bang Theory

A new Big Bang Theory is doing the rounds. Check it out here: Big Bang Theories

I'd advise that a summary be entered into the Speculative physics beyond Big Bang theory section.

Cheers

Manus

Ozresearcher (talk) 09:35, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

How about, NO.TR 11:18, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Truly awful. -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 11:20, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Abysmal indeed. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 11:28, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I especially liked "Suddenly the dimension of time existed". Gandalf61 (talk) 11:56, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Another hilarious favourite: "As space and time didn’t exist, that string was immediately travelling at infinite velocity". Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 07:49, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Overview

Certainly not earlier than the Planck Epoch.... The Planck Epoch is defined to be from 0 to 10E-43 seconds. Hence this makes no sense. The article clearly implies that we can model INTO the Planck Epoch. I doubt it. We do not have the Science. Can you clean this up so that it is not nonsense? Saying it isn't earlier than 0 (isn't before the beginning) is not an answer.71.31.153.56 (talk) 15:05, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

In context, the threshold is obviously intended to be the end of the Planck epoch. I have clarified this in the article. Gandalf61 (talk) 18:12, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

What experts think

The article does not mention what was the condition when the cosmic background radiation phase started, since this is a crucial issue in any big bang model. i.e, was there any initial size(etc) or was it unbounded and infinite at that point. Also it does not mention how the farthest moving galaxy clusters(which are very old) can be compared on an equal scale with other galaxies taken as is. This leads to many confusions that start with not the big bang model but by the way the article goes. So, can any expert enumerate a little bit on such issues to make it more cohesive. 27.61.220.153 (talk) 11:18, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

There is already an article with that info (is it linked?)--190.60.93.218 (talk) 16:02, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Please revise the first paragraph

The first paragraph currently reads:

The Big Bang model, or theory, is the prevailing cosmological theory of the early development of the universe. The theory purports to explain some of the earliest events in the universe. According to the theory, the universe was once in an extremely hot and dense state that expanded rapidly (a "Big Bang"). As there is little consensus among physicists about the origins of the universe, the Big Bang theory explains only that such a rapid expansion caused the young universe to cool and resulted in its present continuously expanding state. According to recent measurements, the original state of the universe existed around 13.7 billion years ago (see age of the Universe), to which some physicists refer as the time that the Big Bang occurred. Physicists have attempted to establish the theory's validity through scientific evidence and observations.

I suggest revising it to the following:

The Big Bang is the prevailing cosmological theory of the early development of the universe. The major features of the Big Bang theory are that the universe was once in an extremely hot and dense state that expanded rapidly (a "Big Bang"). This rapid expansion caused the young universe to cool and resulted in its present continuously expanding state. According to recent measurements, scientific evidence, and observations, the original state happened around 13.7 billion years ago (see age of the Universe), which can be referred to as the time that the Big Bang occurred.

I argue that my version is better for the following reasons:

1. There is a lot of redundancy in the current first paragraph that is removed in my version (two instances of the word "theory" , repetition of the point about it being about the early universe, etc.)
2. The second sentence in the first version doesn't add anything and is objectively false (theories cannot purport, only people can), so I removed it.
3. The contention in the current version that there is "little consensus among physicists about the origin of the universe", aside from being unsourced, is a highly loaded statement that may or may not be true depending on what values of "most", "physicist", "origin", and "universe" you use. As the sentence itself isn't about the Big Bang per se, I think it's best excised.
4. The two sentences are clunky in the current version. They can be combined to read much more cleanly.

Additionally, it looks as though some enterprising editors were placing in a lot of qualifiers partially suggesting a lot more doubt about the Big Bang theory than there is in the literature, in the sources cited, or amongst those "in the know". I think my version dispenses with this implied special pleading.

I'd love it if an editor with an account took my suggestion and ran with it. I can't be bothered to start an account.

69.86.225.27 (talk) 07:14, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

OK  Done.TR 11:44, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Remove religious interpretations

The religious interpretations of the Big Bang theory are not found in the most reliable sources on the Big Bang theory. As such, it shouldn't appear on this page. See WP:ONEWAY and consider removing that section. 140.252.83.241 (talk) 00:51, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

WP:ONEWAY actually kinda contradicts your assertion:

Fringe theories may be mentioned in the text of other articles only if independent reliable sources connect the topics in a serious and prominent way. However, meeting this standard indicates only that the idea may be discussed in other articles, not that it must be discussed in a specific article. If mentioning a fringe theory in another article gives undue weight to the fringe theory, discussion of the fringe theory may be limited, or even omitted altogether. If no independent reliable sources connect a particular fringe theory to a mainstream subject, there should not even be a link through a see also section, lest the article serve as a coatrack.

and regardless of that, WP:NPOV, which is part of WP:5P, contradicts and overrides it:

In general, achieving what the Wikipedia community understands as "neutrality" means carefully and critically analyzing a variety of sources, then attempting to convey the results to the reader clearly and accurately. Wikipedia aims to describe disputes, but not engage in them. There are few hard-and-fast rules for doing this—much depends on the good faith of editors, who should be striving to provide information, not promote a particular cause. However, observing the following principles, together with those of verifiability, will help to achieve the level of neutrality which is appropriate for an encyclopedia.

WP:NPOV 101 there. Kaini (talk) 02:21, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

This isn't about "disputes". This is about the fact that religious interpretations of this scientific theory are not properly part of the scientific theory being presented. They are interpretations: independent of the theory and they are not discussed in any science text or peer-reviewed paper on the subject that I've seen. Those are the best sources. The sources that discuss the religious interpretations can be left to the page on that subject which can link back here. 140.252.83.232 (talk) 10:59, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Rather dangerous to suggest that articles on scientific subjects should only reference scientific sources - that is half way to the widely-discredited "scientific point of view" idea. As you say, we have a whole article on religious interpretations of the Big Bang theory, and there is no harm in giving a short summary of it in this main article. Gandalf61 (talk) 13:57, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Why is it dangerous to suggest that scientific subjects should use scientific sources? Wikipedia doesn't use scientific sources in the article on the Resurrection of Jesus, after all, which would simply say, "The resurrection account in Christian folklore is a scientific impossibility. The only rational way to approach the story is to deny its truth-value in terms of actual physical occurrence." We could reference this: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/9781444327946.ch18/summary If Wikipedia is that pluralistic, it should be no problem to add this to that article. If you agree, I'll let them know over there that what's fair is fair. 140.252.83.232 (talk) 20:44, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I said it is dangerous to suggest that articles on scientific subjects should only reference scientific sources, which was what you appeared to be suggesting. The danger is that this gives a special standing within Wikipedia to the scientific world view. This would be contrary to the principle of NPOV, which says that our articles should represent "fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources". Since reliable non-scientific sources contain commentary on the Big Bang, then this commentary should be mentioned in our article. For comparison, our article on the Plagues of Egypt not only references religous sources, but also contains a lengthy section on non-supernatural explanations of the plagues, and our article on ghosts has a section on scientific explanations of ghosts. I agree with your point that the Resurrection of Jesus article is, as it stands, somewhat one-sided, and it would be improved by references to notable secular interpretations and explanations of the resurrection narrative.Gandalf61 (talk) 11:51, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Keep it but shrink it. It already has a main article that needn't be duplicated. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 07:45, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

About this religion thing for a second

Although I'm a biologist rather than a physicist, I still know the general principles of natural science. Although natural science can not conclusively verify the presence of a God, it also can not conclusively reject that concept. This is because only tangible things (and I'm using "tangible" in the loosest possible sense, anything that has a physical-spacial form/effect that can be detected by any conceivable instrument) can be tested, and only testable things can be conclusively accepted or rejected. This is why all so-called "conflicts" or "interpretations" between natural science and religion are false statements. Contrary to popular belief, science and religion do not conflict. However, they also do not (conclusively) demonstrate one another. Since they are independent realms as I just explained, I for one would be against implying otherwise in this (or any) Article. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 04:33, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

For a biologist, you make a very weird claim. You ask us to take this sentence seriously: "It also can not conclusively reject that concept." And I question your credentials. If you are a biologist, then you should know that you cant disprove anything with science. Thats not how empirical science works. It doesnt disprove anything because it CANT. That is not its function. Windmills Do Not Work That Way. Sadly, even if you are what you say, your opinion matters not since it still violates the way empirical science functions, something a scientist should know.

Science Cannot Disprove Things. And yes, Religion and science do conflict. Because a supernatural entity could have created reality 12 seconds ago, after erasing the old one with a special eraser all set up to look as if we had been writing on this page. He could turn back time. Unravel reality as it saw fit. Ergo: It is meaningless to include any supernatural element in science, and all supernatural elements conflict with science, because science is the study and observation of the natural world. Which the supernatural world is not. Unless you also think we should include the probability of finding a teapot in floating in space between the earth and mars, and treat it as just as credible a theory. 74.132.249.206 (talk) 19:30, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Whether or not religion and science conflict is irrelevant to the question of whether the section does or does not belong in the article. Fact: Wikipedia is not a scientific journal. Fact: NPOV should exist in all articles. Fact: Religious interpretation is one (actually it is many) POV, science is another (which also consists of many POV's). Fact: Articles should be written in a way that layman can understand and identify with (a policy that is all too frequently ignored in technical articles). These are all well-known Wikipedia policies. The section belongs there and should stay. Far more readers of Wikepedia have some form of religious belief or belief in a creator than readers that do not. Leaving out all comment regarding religious contention with the Big Bang Theory ignores a vast number of reader's sensibilities.

Additionally, whether or not religion and science do or do not conflict is not a discussion that belongs here on this talk page. This page is for direct discussion of the article, not for philosophical debates about the topic. It isn't important whether certain individuals feel one way or the other about any controversy surrounding any topic on Wikipedia. What is important is whether debate exists, and that if so, that debate/controversy is represented in the article in order to maintain NPOV. Obviously, any controversy that does exist should also be presented in NPOV manner. Given the fact that religious contention clearly exists regarding this subject, leaving it out would undoubtedly constitute POV. --SentientParadox (talk) 15:38, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Inappropriate Assumptions the Implications of Problems

Although this article includes a few of the problems (resolved & unresolved) that the Big Bang theory faces, it is unnecessarily (and inappropriately) predictive of the size and impact of these problems. The article consistently asserts that any problems with the model are resolvable without serious damage to the model itself as the riegning theory. In laymans terms, it can be 'patched upè. Inconsistent findings with the models predictive elements, we are meant to believe, will not damage it`s central propositions or jeaporodize it's standing as the dominent model.

I suggest that this tone is inappropriate and presumptuous.

Whether those things which seem to undermine it's current validity will require small revisions to resolve or a major overhaul it is not possible to predict at this stage. I suggest the article reflect (if it is the case) a majority opinion by cosmologists that only superficial changes to the model will be required in the future but whether or not this is the case, the concept that problems that undermine the model are superficial and do not threaten the model as a whole should not be presented as fact.

It is too early to determine the implication of problems that are not resolved or the impact their resolutions will have on the Big Bang theories popularity or form. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.21.162.121 (talk) 11:20, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

If you have a reliable source which says there are mainstream cosmologists who believe a major re-write of the Big Bang model may be required then you can include it in the article. Gandalf61 (talk) 12:36, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

That makes sense, thanks. I guess, like democratic systems, the priority here is to represent mainstream viewpoints not evaluate their validity or rationality. I would imagine it would be difficult to find a mainstream cosmologist who thinks a new theory will be needed. In my view, all the `dark-stuff`of the theory is very stop-gap, but I do understand that my viewpoint is not the issue here. Perhaps this is not the right forum for these thoughts. Anyway, thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.21.162.121 (talk) 16:02, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Not sure how to delete this topic but this is closed for me. I appreciate getting such a sensible and non-combative answer from Gandalf61. I know it must be frustrating to have opinionated people on here who don`t understand all the rules about how to edit Wikipedia. Thanks again. I also understand the purpose and limits of Wikipedia better. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.21.162.121 (talk) 16:18, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

There's no need to delete it (in fact, that's discouraged); just leave it for a while, and it'll be automatically archived (usually within a couple of months). For more information on how Wikipedia works, the WP:WELCOME page is a good place to start. Enjoy! --Christopher Thomas (talk) 18:59, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from , 18 October 2011

Georges Lemaître proposed what became known as the Big Bang theory of the origin of the Universe; he called it his "hypothesis of the primeval atom". However, the concept has always been part of Jewish philosophy; Nachmanides actually wrote about it almost 1000 years ago. "...At the briefest instant following creation all the matter of the universe was concentrated in a very small place, no larger than a grain of mustard. The matter at this time was very thin, so intangible, that it did not have real substance. It did have, however, a potential to gain substance and form and to become tangible matter. From the initial concentration of this intangible substance in its minute location, the substance expanded, expanding the universe as it did so. As the expansion progressed, a change in the substance occurred. This initially thin noncorporeal substance took on the tangible aspects of matter as we know it. From this initial act of creation, from this etherieally thin pseudosubstance, everything that has existed, or will ever exist, was, is, and will be formed. [Commentary on Torah, Genesis 1:1, Naḥmanides, quoted in Gerald Schroeder “Genesis and the Big Bang: The Discovery of Harmony Between modern Science and the Bible” ISBN 0-553-35413-2 p.65] The framework for Georges Lemaître's model relies on Albert Einstein's general relativity and on simplifying assumptions (such as homogeneity and isotropy of space).

It is implied by the original article that the big bang theory is a new concept but it is obviously not as there is written proof that Jewish philosophers knew about it as far back as the 13th century. If this adaptation is not acceptable do to its length perhaps include it later on in the article. A mention that Georges Lemaitre did not coin the concept in this paragraph is a must as to say he did would be factually incorrect. 93.172.247.163 (talk) 14:22, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

It was first proposed for scientific reasons by Lemaitre. The passage you quote is already mentioned at Religious interpretations of the Big Bang theory. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 18:09, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Comment about the notes section

Notes one and two at the end seem somewhat contradictory. The first claims Hoyle coined the term "Big Bang" specifically because it sounded ugly, which indicates to me at least that it was intended to be a pejorative. However, the second note claims that Hoyle didn't intend the term to be pejorative but rather to be striking and illustrative, which seems to contradict the first note's claim that the term was chosen for its ugliness. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.124.8.169 (talk) 19:06, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from , 13 October 2011

Can you please change: "... and others completely reject or ignore the evidence for the Big Bang theory."

to

"... and others completely reject the Big Bang theory's claims altogether."

or something similar because saying "the evidence for" makes it sound as if people who don't believe in the Big Bang theory are rejecting something that is "evident." Rather, some people, even scientists, reject the claims of the Big Bang theory, but don't reject the evidence--they simply interpret the evidence to mean something else.

Thank you. Reyobem (talk) 02:00, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Only one way to interpret the current evidence. Other "interpretations" are wrong because they contradict data - often data the objector doesn't even believe/know exists.Farsight001 (talk) 02:20, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

....suggest a compromise of striking only the words "or ignore". these words are redundant with "reject" anyway. This also gives a more NPOV connotation while still retaining the "evidence" portion of the statement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.63.4.58 (talk) 06:35, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Edit request 20 October 2011

Please remove this sentence from the intro:

"Hoyle later helped considerably in the effort to understand stellar nucleosynthesis, the nuclear pathway for building certain heavier elements from lighter ones."

While this statement is true, it is irrelevant to the Big Bang and certainly doesn't belong in an introductory section. 128.59.171.194 (talk) 18:34, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

 DoneTR 08:21, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

ancient galaxies Contradict the big bang theory

This is archived because the person posting it is a sockpuppet of a banned user. See relevant policy at WP:BAN
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Oh my, how embarrassing ! Ancient galaxies contradict the big bang theory. http://www.eso.org/public/news/eso1143/ Ancient quasars also contradict the big bang theory. http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/331980/title/Most_distant_quasar_raises_questions These two articles point out problems for the big bang, and they should be included in Section 4 regarding problems. 71.98.130.72 (talk) 22:12, 4 November 2011 (UTC) After having read the articles, I must ask - in what way do those articles contradict the big bang theory and in what way is the information within embarrassing? I think that perhaps you are mistaken.Farsight001 (talk) 22:20, 4 November 2011 (UTC) (edit conflict)As I pointed out to you earlier, neither of the two articles you've provided explicitly say there are problems with the Big Bang. And as Dmcq pointed out to you on Talk:Tired light, we cannot make deductions when including content. Doing so would be original research, or synthesis of sources, which are both forbidden on wikipedia. In order to include these new studies, there needs to be explicit mention in a reliable secondary source that the studies have implications on the Big Bang theory. Do you know of such a source?   — Jess· Δ♥ 22:24, 4 November 2011 (UTC) Any astronomer seeing these two articles knows they are a serious problem, there should not be heavy elements early in the big bang. Heavy elements should not appear until many billions of years after the big bang because heavy elements are produced in old stars after they explode and die, which takes many billions of years. The two articles are clearly saying this, when read by any astronomer. 71.98.130.72 (talk) 22:31, 4 November 2011 (UTC) Really? Any astronomer? And are you an astronomer? No? Then how do you know? Seriously, neither of those articles say what you claim, nor do either of them provide any sort of problem for the big bang. Nothing says that there should not be heavy elements early in the big bang. In fact, a lot says that they should be present, just rare. Please, at least understand astronomy a little before you try to criticize. Those articles in NO way say what you claim.Farsight001 (talk) 22:40, 4 November 2011 (UTC) I'll second User:Farsight's comments. The first article shows that young galaxies produced heavy elements earlier than expected. While interesting, this in no way contradicts the big bang model - instead, it provides information useful for models of galaxy formation and formation of Population III stars (as these are the stars that would have produced the heavy elements). The second article shows that a young galaxy formed and became active slightly earlier than expected. This also influences models of galaxy formation, but does not in any way conflict with the big bang model. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 22:48, 4 November 2011 (UTC) (edit conflict)If so, then please find an astronomer who published that view in a reliable secondary source. Please read WP:V to see why we need that. Thanks.   — Jess· Δ♥ 22:41, 4 November 2011 (UTC) I am an astronomer. Any astronomer reading these two articles knows they are a serious blow to the big bang hypothesis. Heavy elements cannot exist that early, but they do. It kills the big bang theory. The two articles are saying this in as simple a terms as possible for you lay people. 71.98.130.72 (talk) 22:46, 4 November 2011 (UTC) If you are an astronomer, then you will have no problem citing publications in reputable journals that back up your claims. Others have already requested that you do so. If you can't, then per WP:V, drop it. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 22:50, 4 November 2011 (UTC) The two articles are already saying it, in plain English for you lay people. Can you not read ? 71.98.130.72 (talk) 22:52, 4 November 2011 (UTC) Please see WP:PA. We need a source that says something like "Astronomers have noted that (X), which according to (Y) shows there are problems with the Big Bang theory". Your articles only say "Astronomers have noted that (X)". We cannot deduce from (X) that there are problems with the BB, we need a scientist within a reliable source who says so explicitly. Can you find a source like that? A paper within a high quality scientific journal would be great.   — Jess· Δ♥ 23:32, 4 November 2011 (UTC) Yes, we can read, and we are pointing out to you that the articles do not say what you claim they say. What you think the articles say is not in plain English because it is not in the articles at all. You are "hallucinating".Farsight001 (talk) 23:43, 4 November 2011 (UTC) They're never going to say this kills the big bang theory but any astronomer reading these two articles knows it is a contradiction of the big bang theory. At those early epochs according to the big bang theory there is only supposed to be just hydrogen and helium, nothing heavier. But these two articles report the contrary, a serious contradiction of the big bang hypothesis. 71.98.136.237 (talk) 01:26, 5 November 2011 (UTC) Irrespective of who is reading them, and what they may know, reading sources to reach a conclusion based on them is original research. Original research is not permitted on Wikipedia. Period. If they do not say this kills the big bang theory then neither can Wikipedia. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 01:31, 5 November 2011 (UTC) (edit conflict)If they're never going to say it, then we can't print it. See WP:V. Wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth.   — Jess· Δ♥ 01:33, 5 November 2011 (UTC) Lots of astronomers have published that the big bang is wrong and never happened, but Wikipedia will never include those references. 71.98.136.237 (talk) 01:50, 5 November 2011 (UTC) I think you and the rest of us have a very different definition on what makes someone an astronomer if you really think astronomers have published such stuff. It would be HUGE news and the publisher would be a shoe-in for the next nobel prize. The whole world would know about it if such an article were ever published.Farsight001 (talk) 02:08, 5 November 2011 (UTC) See WP:RS, specifically WP:SCHOLARSHIP, for guidelines about what journals are considered reputable for purposes of sourcing articles. The short version is, if it's a fringe journal nobody at a reputable institution cites, it doesn't count. For guidance about specific journals, ask at WT:AST. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 02:26, 5 November 2011 (UTC) See Eric Lerner's book, The big bang never happened, there he references many astronomers who don't accept the big bang hypothesis and who have published against it. 71.98.135.146 (talk) 15:43, 6 November 2011 (UTC) Here is a galaxy less than one billion years after the hypothetical beginning point of the big bang, and already there are heavy elements, this kills the big bang theory, stars are not formed and die in that short amount of time to have created heavy elements, these ancient galaxies are thus older than the big bang which kills the big bang theory. http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Abundant_Carbon_in_the_Early_Universe_999.html 71.98.136.218 (talk) 13:04, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Suggested Link

Hi there. I have been working on a project in collaboration with two astrophysicists on the history of the Universe. The aim of the project was to create an educational resource that could bring the full story of the beginning of the universe to people without using that misplaced old metaphor, 'big bang'.

Please click here for the site. What do you think about includign it as an external link for this page?

Thankyou, Amphibio (talk) 16:04, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

You've been reverted after adding that link to Timeline of the Big Bang, Universe, Creation myth, and List of creation myths, so it's pretty clear the answer is "no". This sort of thing is considered spamming, per the WP:LINKSPAM policy. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 18:42, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I understand that my activities have been interpreted as spamming, although the site exists solely for educational purposes (namely, a clear, accesible explanation of the science of the big bang). The site is relevant to all the topics. I do admit I was being greedy by posting it accross four different articles, and am sorry about that. However, I would like to make the case that it would be a beneficial external link on two pages; either 'big bang' or 'timeline of the big bang', and on the page 'list of creation stories'. Please have a look at the content of the site, and then let me know if it will be reconsidered Amphibio (talk) 20:35, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

If you want to make a case for your site being suitable to link from cosmology articles, then what you should do is go to WT:AST (the talk page for WikiProject Astronomy), start a new thread at the _bottom_ of the talk page, and make your case. Sign your post with "~~~~". Others will then respond. That said, I expect the response of other editors to be similar to mine (though it's possible I'm mistaken). They'll at least respect the fact that you were polite enough to ask. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 21:28, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Thankyou for that. It has to be said I am new to wikipedia, and did not understand the protocol. Amphibio (talk) 21:46, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Religious and Philosophical interpretations

SUMMARY: "CONSENSUS" Discussion Now Officially Closed - See Related RFC Results Below - 19 Editors *FAVORED* and 23 *OPPOSED* (and 05 *Not Known*) Deleting The Religious and Philosophy-related Section From The Main "Big Bang" article (a/o 20 March 2012,02:15pmET/usa).

• FAVORED Deletion: (N=19) -> 203.122.211.169 + 69.86.225.27 + Cadiomals + Hudn12 + Viriditas + Drbogdan + + John Carter + Christopher Thomas + Polyamorph + Waleswatcher + Kaini + IVAN3MAN + Tivanir2 + Dr Marcus Hill + Gkell1 + ArtifexMayhem + Npmay + Dominus Vobisdu + Jkhwiki
  
• OPPOSED Deletion: (N=23) -> Anupam + Noformation + Geremia + TR + Dilaton + Steve + Gandalf61 + Headbomb + RJH + 70.24.251.71 + James McBride + Adjwilley + Gsonnenf + Lionel + Dilaton + Trystan + TopGun + Diego + Miniapolis + Cody7777777 + Justice007 + Elmmapleoakpine + History2007
  
• Not Known: (N=05) -> aprock + IRWolfie- + JonRichfield + Harizotoh9 + Kheider
  

In Any Case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 17:32, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

I wonder if it might be useful to distinguish philosophical interpretations from religious interpretations? Disturbingly, there is no real discrimination made between the two, and I think the reader might imply that the two are indistinguishable. Alternatively, maybe the section as it stands is unnecessary. After all, it deals only with Christian - mostly Catholic - views anyway, and as such does not cover the topic the subheading refers to. Perhaps it could be placed somehow in the 'categories' umbrella? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.122.211.169 (talk) 02:30, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

I tend to agree with the latter part of this suggestion. The religious interpretations of the Big Bang section is not very comprehensive and more-or-less out-of-date. 69.86.225.27 (talk) 13:35, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

It may or may not be helpful to just remove the section altogether. It doesn't provide a lot of information, and really isn't very useful. Cadiomals (talk) 01:08, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

I think that it would be helpful to remove the section. There may be a way to link it elsewhere in the article, but it seems really out-of-place and of considerably lower quality than the rest of this very good article. Hudn12 (talk) 20:09, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

I do not think that it would be helpful to remove the section, especially since the Big Bang does have implications of the origins of the universe, as does religion. The section already links to the main article, Religious interpretations of the Big Bang theory, which contains more information. I disagree with the assertion that the section is "considerably lower quality than the rest of this very good article," especially since the section is buttressed with a variety of scholarly sources. However, I am open to suggestions on improving the section. I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam^Talk 20:24, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

From the daughter article: "Lemaître himself always insisted that, as a physical theory, the Big Bang has no religious implications". I agree with Hudn12 and Cadiomals. This section serves no purpose. Viriditas (talk) 12:03, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

User:Viriditas, could you please provide a reference for that claim? Also stating that the section serves no purpose without giving a reason is not helpful. If you look at other articles such as evolution, a section on "Social and Cultural Responses" is given. Having a similar section in this article is indeed helpful. By the way, was this article on your watchlist? You haven't ever edited this article before. I look forward to your comments. With regards, Anupam^Talk 18:54, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Other stuff exists. You have yet to respond to any of the points made in this discussion. Let me summarize them for you to help you focus: 1) religious interpretations is Christian-centric and does not distinguish between philosophy and religion 2) it is neither comprehensive nor current 3) no useful information is given 4) Lemaître himself said that as a physical theory, the Big Bang has no religious implications. Viriditas (talk) 21:17, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

No, you are incorrect. The Big Bang, dealing with the origins of the universe does have philosophical and religious implications, which are discussed in depth here. You cannot simply state that "other stuff exists," while ignoring this fact. I agree that it would be helpful to add a brief summary of other philosophical and religious interpretations, including those of Hinduism, Islam, etc. to the section of the article. Perhaps you could find the sources and add the information? Also, you stated that "Lemaître himself said that as a physical theory, the Big Bang has no religious implications." Where is a reliable source for the assertion that you make? I look forward to your response. With regards, Anupam^Talk 21:26, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

"Other stuff exists" refers to the weakness of your argument. You do not appear to have addressed any of the points made by other editors. Viriditas (talk) 21:38, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

I am not really sure what you are talking about. The sentence in the section, which states: "But as a theory which addresses the origins of reality, it has always carried theological and philosophical implications, most notably, the concept of creation ex nihilo (a Latin phrase meaning "out of nothing")" has a total of FIVE references supporting it. I've asked you to provide a reference for your assertion that "Lemaître himself said that as a physical theory, the Big Bang has no religious implications" and you have provided NONE. If you wish to make progress in this discussion, please engage in a friendly dialogue with me rather than dismissing me outright, as I have tried to do with you. Thanks, Anupam^Talk 21:45, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

The assertion is from the daughter article you are attempting to summarize, as you were previously informed. You seem to be making this about editors rather than the points made by editors. Do you think every religious concept should have a science section? Viriditas (talk) 22:20, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Dear User:Viriditas, you stated "Do you think every religious concept should have a science section?" No, I do not. I also do not think that articles on every science concept should have a section on religion and philosophy. Articles on ulcerative colitis, gravity, etc. should not have such a section. However, the Big Bang, as demonstrated by the five sources in the section, does relate to religion and philosophy, as does the article on evolution (although for different reasons). I know that you stated that your assertion is lifted from the daughter article. However the daughter article does not have a citation for that claim. Since you wish to remove the section (rather than ameliorate it) on that basis, I am asking you to provide a reliable citation that assertion. Thank you, Anupam^Talk 23:18, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

This is a featured article. We should no be linking to or summarizing an unsourced daughter article. I'm afraid it is you has the burden of proof, not me. I'm prepared to remove the entire section per consensus. Viriditas (talk) 23:22, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

No, the burden of proof lies on you since you can't provide a single reference for your assertion on which you wish to remove the section. I've provided five sources and if you remove the section, you will be reverted since consensus has not been reached. This discussion has only been opened for one day. Please allow other users to comment. Thanks, Anupam^Talk 23:23, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

There's no consensus for inclusion, and you have not addressed any of the problems. Feel free to improve the main article and address the concerns raised in this discussion, but stop asking others to do your homework. Viriditas (talk) 23:27, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

That's not how Wikipedia works. I've provided five sources that discuss the relationship of the Big Bang to religion and philosophy and they are currently contained within the article. You are asserting a claim that you can't even provide a reference for it! As such, you're trying to remove a sourced section from the article because you don't like it. Doing so is repugnant and contrary to how this encyclopaedia operates. Moreover, I have worked on this article, unlike yourself, who followed me here simply to oppose me. This kind of disruptive behaviour is not warranted. Once again, allow others to comment. I may start an RfC next week if others have not commented. In the mean time, do not remove a longstanding section from the article. Thanks, Anupam^Talk 23:36, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Consensus is how Wikipedia works, and you've added content back into this article that is narrow, out of date, and is linked to an unsourced article. Five editors support the removal and only one (you) support keeping it. You've been told that the material has problems and needs to be fixed but you refuse to do the work. So, it appears you are ignoring consensus, ignoring the comments of others, and edit warring to push a POV. Yes, that is not how Wikipedia works. Viriditas (talk) 23:51, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Being that religion is a product of mankind attempting to explain the universe, and that the big bang is the actual explanation of the beginning of the universe, I think that these particular topics are interwoven and would be surprised to not see a religious interpretations section. It shouldn't, of course, be phrased in such a way that it gives any sort of credence to the religious view, but the views - if published in notable reliable sources - should be included. I can see how it would be problematic for an FA to use a daughter article, and I can also see the lower quality of writing in this section vs. the others. So I would recommend keeping a section on the topic but making it better (and this can mean removing the section and rewriting it). Expanding it to include other religious interpretations would also be good. I do have to stress though that the sources must be academic, and if there are academic sources on the matter then it means that someone with a PHD who is more qualified than us has seen fit to write about it, and so it would be audacious for us to ignore it. N^oformation ^Talk 23:53, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Dear User:Noformation, thanks for your comment. I agree that the section is indeed relevant but should be expanded to include other viewpoints, as I indicated above. Would you like to make the additions? If not, I have some free time next weekend in which I can improve the section with other philosophical and religious opinion. My academic qualifications would allow me to do so. I look forward to your response. With regards, Anupam^Talk

Please stop asking other editors to take over your burden of proof. You are welcome to use your user space to work on a version of the section and unsourced daughter article as your free time permits, but a mainspace featured article is not a sandbox. I also have serious concerns about the content and the sources already in use. Per the consensus of five editors, the material should stay removed until it is ready for mainspace. Viriditas (talk) 00:35, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Definitely not my field of expertise so I will leave it to you and others to make the necessary changes. N^oformation ^Talk 00:36, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Dear User:Noformation, thanks for your comment! I will give more time for others here to comment and next weekend, I will add more views to the section. Perhaps you could take a look at it then and offer any advice you have for improvements. I hope you have a nice evening. With regards, Anupam^Talk 00:40, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

FWIW (and at the moment) -> I Agree with the Editors who think the "Big Bang" Article should be about the Scientific aspects of the "Big Bang" only - after all, the "Big Bang" began (and continues) as a Scientific notion (and Scientific fact - at least insofar as our current Scientific evidences can determine) - OTOH, the "Religious interpretations of the Big Bang theory" Article should be about the Religious (including philosophical and non-scientific) aspects only - Links between the two Articles could be added to the relevant "See Also" Sections - this may all make the overall discussion of the "Big Bang" notion clearer and more understandable - and (imo) more encyclopedic - at least to the usual Wikipedia reader - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 01:05, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

If scholarly sources talk about religious interpretations of the big bang then we have to represent that in this article in some fashion per WP:NPOV, even if it's just a parhraph with a link to the daughter article. The main big bang should include mention of any substantial subarticle as it is technically the parent article. N^oformation ^Talk 01:30, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

As you are probably already aware, the mere existence of sources does not imply inclusion. We do not "have" to represent any view per NPOV. We have to represent established and minority views in proportion to their coverage on the topic. Anupam seems to be cherry picking sources to argue that the Big Bang is bringing people closer to God. However, that is an undue representation. Viriditas (talk) 02:09, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Of course, but if academics are writing on a particular topic it's a good indicator it's relevant for an encyclopedia. I'm not talking popular sources here, I'm talking experts in the relevant fields. Regarding Anupam's sources in specific I have nothing to say since I haven't gotten deep into this. Nothing I've written should indicate that I support Anupam's sources in specific, nor any particular text for the section. My only point is that if there are scholarly sources on the subject then we should talk about it in some capacity. N^oformation ^Talk 02:12, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, we should probably start looking at them. Viriditas (talk) 02:15, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry Anupam but I think the religious implications are way, way out. They make both physics and religion look bad - and make Wikipedia look way out too. Most of the credible encyclopedias would have passed on this. I think the most that can be done is a See also at the end - even if that. History2007 (talk) 02:27, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

For what it might be worth, I tend to agree with History2007 here. I myself tend to think that maybe, while the subject itself seems to be to notable and worthy of inclusion somewhere, it might be better placed in an article dealing more broadly with scientific views of creation and the religious interpretation of them. I think the more recent multiple-universe theory also has been said to have some specific religious implications, and I suppose the steady-state theory might as well, and it might be best to place all such material in one article, with, maybe, a short statement in the other relevant articles and a link to it. John Carter (talk) 02:32, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Just because the First Cause (God) is mentioned, that does not mean we are not dealing strictly with natural theology, a branch of philosophy. Some interpret the moment the bang occurred ~14 billion years ago with the single act of creation of the universe by its First Cause. This is Deism, which holds that the First Cause only provides the initial conditions of the universe and that the universe can then exist on its own without the First Cause causing, moving, or changing it anymore. Theism holds that there is just as much creatio ex nihilo ("creation out of nothing") now as at the moment of the "Big Bang" because the First Cause is necessary to sustain beings in existence at every moment of their existence. Also, the question "Can the First Cause create out of nothing eternal matter, or does the First Cause have to create matter within time?" is a philosophical one that, e.g., Thomas Aquinas discusses in his short work De Æternitate Mundi (On the Eternity of the World), in which he concludes that it must be held on faith whether or not matter is eternal. In short, I suggest renaming the section "Philosophical and religious interpretations." —Geremia (talk) 03:37, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Also, I would like to clarify that theism and deism can be argued both from a religious perspective and from a philosophical perspective. This is why this section should be renamed "Philosophical and religious interpretations."—Geremia (talk) 15:47, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Per the thread at WT:PHYS, I am offering my comments. I think this section should be removed, as it contributes nothing at all to the description of the Big Bang. Instead, it represents religions trying awkwardly to shoehorn religious texts into a form that doesn't outright contradict the model. Any content of this type should instead be folded into their respective religion articles, not here. If there was a single article about religious views about the creation of the world (the equivalent of the creation myth article, but for active religions; counterpart to the eschatology article), then it might be noteworthy enough for a link in the "see also" section, but that's it. Having the section in the Big Bang article does not contribute - at all - to understanding of the Big Bang model, which is what this article is supposed to be about. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 06:51, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

I disagree. From the very beginning, the reception of the theory has been affected by its possible religious implications. (Early resistance to the theory from the scientific community was partly because it was perceived as religiously motivated, a sentiment not helped by the fact the theory was embraced by the vatican early on.) Having this section contributes to the understanding of the social reception of the theory, which is relevant to cover.TR 08:02, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, this is certainly true. One reason the Steady State Model, which the Big Bang theory then superseded, was so popular is that considering matter eternal appears to rule out the need for searching for a First Cause.—Geremia (talk) 15:47, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Christopher Thomas that this adds nothing for a reader interested in physics, but I would go further. It presence makes Wikipedia look silly. I think you can add a sentence in the history section or the notes that that Lemaître was a priest, and in the early days people said it was a religious theory and leave it at that, then a See also link. And the whole page on Religious interpretations of the Big Bang theory is a mess itself. So no point in promoting a link to a junk-text page. And the subsection (although title-painted as philosophy) is not written s such, and does not mention Hindu, Islam etc. And Aquinas had probably never heard of the Big Bang, and that seems like a real stretch. This is really another one of those "surrogate debates about God" that in the end go nowhere. Most theologians do not understand the physics, and most physicists do not agree with the theology of this. A See also is all that it deserves. History2007 (talk) 09:22, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

I would think the current text could be moved to the article Religious interpretations of the Big Bang theory as it seems better sourced than most of what is in that article. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:29, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

I've tidied the other article up a bit and removed the most glaring OR. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:49, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. This text is better suited there, and that other page needs serious clean up. I think 1% (or less) of those who click on Bigbang are looking for half-baked theology anyway, so might as well ship it there with a See also item, for those who want it. History2007 (talk) 11:00, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

For the article to be comprehensive I think some small mention should be made in the Motivation and development section (possibly with it being renamed. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:20, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

The condition of the Religious interpretations of the Big Bang theory page is irrelevant to whether this article should link to it. The reception of a theory by society is relevant to the page on the theory. There is nothing silly about mentioning it on Wikipedia, especially since it is discussed in plenty of sources. (In fact, if the article did not cover it, it would blatantly fail the FA criteria, since it is not comprehensive!) Of course, since this article is long and covers a lot of ground, this is not the place to go into depth. The normal course of action in such situations is to have a short section of one or two paragraphs and a {{main}} article link to an article that goes more into depth. (see WP:SUMMARYSTYLE) This is would the article currently does, and that is perfectly fine.TR 12:42, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

I also agree with Christopher Thomas (and came here from the post at WT:PHYS). Since religions have no basis in science or reason it doesn't belong here. I support moving the content to Religious interpretations of the Big Bang theory. Polyamorph (talk) 12:55, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

As I said above, "theism and deism can be argued both from a religious perspective and from a philosophical perspective [the latter a branch of philosophy called natural theology]. This is why this section should be renamed "Philosophical and religious interpretations."—Geremia (talk) 15:47, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

There is no philosophy related content in that section so a renaming seems pointless.IRWolfie- (talk) 15:55, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Creatio ex nihilo is mentioned, and this can be argued with a strictly logical approach that is not based upon divine revelation.—Geremia (talk) 18:00, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Agree with Christopher Thomas and support deleting the section (or merging it with the main article on religion): As it stands, that section is the only part of this article that is not about science, which is what makes it stick out like a sore thumb so badly. If we're going to include a section on religious interpretations, why not a section on philosophical interpretations, or on the big bang in popular culture, or on the TV show? I don't think including all those things is a good idea - it would clutter up the article. On that basis I think we should make this article strictly about the scientific theory. The religious article could be linked to in a "See Also" section at the bottom, if desired. Waleswatcher (talk) 14:01, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Certainly it should discuss at least the philosophical issues Big Bang theory brings up. Philosophy is no less scientific than modern science.—Geremia (talk) 15:47, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Eh? Philosophy is not scientific at all, it is a completely different discipline. Philosophy does not follow the scientific method. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:54, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, "philosophy" is a much-abused word, I agree. The way I am using it here is more akin to the traditional definition of scientia as "certain knowledge through causes" or "certain, evident knowledge obtained by reasoning only from indisputable principles."—Geremia (talk) 18:00, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the definition of "an experiment" in philosophy is drinking a cup of coffee and scratching one's beard... somewhat different from high energy physics - also see falsifiability for a discussion of that. History2007 (talk) 16:10, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

"An experiment" in the modern scientific sense is a subset of experience, the former not being possible without the latter. —Geremia (talk) 18:00, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

So a suggestion to those who argue for inclusion: Don't fight the tape. It is going in the See also, with a small mention as IRW said. History2007 (talk) 14:28, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Also, going back to the OP's comment that "there is no real discrimination made between" the "religious interpretations" and the "philosophical interpretations," does this mean we should not include at least the "philosophical interpretations"? That's like saying: "Religious people believe God creates the universe; but scientists study the universe; therefore, we cannot mention science because it studies something related to God." Also, the philosophical issues may have played a role for some in choosing to adopt the Big Bang theory over the Steady State Model, so it pertains to this article. —Geremia (talk) 18:00, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

User:Geremia, that is true, as the Big Bang was banned under the Communism of the USSR (reference), and also under the Cultural Revolution of Mao Zedong (reference). Would you be willing to add some more information to the section regarding philosophy? I think one thing everyone here would agree on is that the section should include more viewpoints rather than just Christianity alone. With regards, Anupam^Talk 18:22, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

User:Drbogdan, thanks for your comments. I noticed you removed the longstanding section but then were reverted by another user. I would let this discussion run a few days before removing the section in order to get more feedback. I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam^Talk 18:23, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

@Anupam Thank you for your comment - it's *very much* appreciated - no problem whatsoever - thanks again - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 18:38, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

No problem! Thanks for your contributions! With regards, Anupam^Talk 18:41, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Agree with Polyamorph and others: split the information off into the Religious interpretations of the Big Bang theory article. Kaini (talk) 18:33, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

• I'm not really sure exactly what is being debated here, but the religious do make a fuss about the Big Bang, and it's no small fuss they are making about it. As such, I'm against removing the section, because as an overview article on the big bang, it should summarize all or nearly all encyclopedic aspects of the Big Bang, and that includes the religious and philosophical reactions (renaming the section to 'Religious and philosophical reactions/responses' would be much better than 'theological implications', IMO) similar to how it's done on Evolution (which IMO is spot on how such a section should be dealt with). Maybe the section could be re-written or expanded, but removing it entirely does a disservice to the reader. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 19:04, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

The article has no mention of philosophical reactions so I don't see why it would be renamed to that. The question for me is whether a whole section is due in the article to the topic. The first paragraph appears to be almost purely historical about the initial controversy of steady state vs big bang, this could go into the initial section of the article. The remaining paragraph doesn't really say much (some accept it, some don't). The poor summing up is also probably due to the dire state of the Religious interpretations of the Big Bang theory article. IRWolfie- (talk) 01:30, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

I think the religious implications section should be kept, and is acceptable in its current state. Even though this seems out of place for a scientific theory, the information is relavent to its history and development.-Dilaton (talk) 20:10, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree it's relevant - but the question is how much space should be devoted to it. The possibilities range from none, to a "see also" link at the end, to a sentence or two in the text as proposed above, to an entire section. For the reasons I already articulated, I think an entire section is unbalanced and too much. I would support something along the lines of History2007's proposal: "I think you can add a sentence in the history section or the notes that that Lemaître was a priest, and in the early days people said it was a religious theory and leave it at that, then a See also link." Waleswatcher (talk) 20:44, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

I am in favor of keeping the section at its current length (couple paragraphs).

It was argued that this article should be only about "scientific aspects of the Big Bang", but I see no reason for this. The article title is "Big Bang", and readers will (and should) expect that all important aspects of the Big Bang should be discussed or mentioned. The historical development of Big Bang Theory, for example, is not a "scientific aspect of the Big Bang", but is nevertheless discussed in this article, and no one has proposed to delete it.

The question of whether or not the Big Bang contradicts the beliefs of major religious is quite important to many readers, and is also important according to the criterion of whether reliable sources bring it up. Therefore it warrants more than a "See also" link. The current two-paragraph section seems about right. I like the section as is, but certainly wouldn't mind a more worldwide perspective, and/or a broadening of scope to "Theological and philosophical". (Might warrant a third paragraph.)

Whether or not theology in general, and theology related to the Big Bang in particular, is a load of baloney is quite irrelevant. I don't believe in astrology, but think it's reasonable that the article on the star Rigel mentions that it is in the constellation Orion. I don't believe that the Ganges river has sacred mystic powers but I am happy for the article on the Ganges to discuss the fact that it is sacred in Hinduism. For better or worse, religion is an important thing in the world and should not be arbitrarily declared outside the scope of articles like this. --Steve (talk) 20:58, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

The Big Bang is not a topic of religious discourse, nor is it discussed in their holy books or in their meeting places. The historical development of the theory is quite relevant to an encyclopedic treatment of the subject. Whether there is a contradiction between the Big Bang and religious theories of creation is by all accounts a fringe topic. Most religious bodies recognize no such contradiction. The problem is not that religion is unimportant, the problem is that religion has nothing important to say on this subject. Viriditas (talk) 00:32, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Viriditas, the Big Bang is a topic of religious discourse, discussed at their meeting places. For example, "Pope Pius XII declared, at the November 22, 1951 opening meeting of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, that the Big Bang theory does not conflict with the Catholic concept of creation". Right? Are you denying even that? Or do you mean to say, "The Big Bang is not a major topic of religious discourse"? This is a very good source...there is plenty discussion of this issue which is not fringe ramblings. --Steve (talk) 14:38, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

This kind of literalism is not helpful. Which churches discuss the topic of the Big Bang on Sunday? None. This is not a topic of religious discourse. That religious authorities have an opinion on everything under the Sun is to be expected. But you don't find Buddists and Jews discussing it during meditation and prayer, nor do you find Muslims conversing about it in their mosques. That the Pope made a statement of a few words in 1951 does not merit inclusion. Viriditas (talk) 19:33, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

I've spent a little time over the last day trying to find some decent sources that discuss this topic but I haven't found anything I would feel comfortable with including. Most of what I found was published in books that I don't think would muster past WP:FRINGE because they are essentially attempting to reconcile the science of the big bang with views like a 6000 year old creation. Perhaps it's my search terms, coupled with my lack of familiarity into this narrow subject of religion, but I'm at a loss.

However, I don't think the section as it stands now is as problematic as it's made to seem, nor do I think that religious interpretations of the big bang is a fringe topic per se. All scientific theories have philosophical consequences in some sense or another. That we don't exist in a geocentric universe, for instance, completely alters the path of our philosophical discourse; evolution, too, necessarily changes the way we must look at the world. So I'm still of the opinion that a section discussing the philosophical implications of the big bang (with religion being considered a narrow subset of philosophy, albeit not taken seriously by philosophers outside of theology). With this in mind, I'm going to attempt to find some sources that discuss it from a philosophical point of view when I'm on campus next week.

The argument that this is a science article and therefore there should be nothing but science is not in line with WP practices. Per NPOV we publish all significant viewpoints that are represented by reliable sources in proportion to their prominence. Of course we would not use non-scientific sourcing to contradict or even any science, but explaining the philosophical interpretations is the job of philosophers, not of scientists (full disclosure: I'm working on a double major in biochemistry and philosophy with a focus on epistemology :)), and if academic philosophers have seen fit to write about the subject then it's our job to include those views - such is the very essence of NPOV.

Lastly, because this is obviously a point of contention, I suggest calling an RFC on the subject to get some wider community input. As it stands, there is a majority on one side, but we are not a WP:DEMOCRACY and there are points on both sides that may need further consideration from fresh eyes. N^oformation ^Talk 01:40, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

i think an RfC is a very good idea; i've said in the past that i think that they're underused, and this seems to me to be an almost textbook application of what they're actually intended for. Kaini (talk) 01:45, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

I am in favor of deleting this section on the grounds that it really isn't all that useful in this scientific article especially the way it currently is. It may be long standing but that doesn't mean its right to be here. Cadiomals (talk) 18:51, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

RFC text proposal

I plan on calling an RFC on the matter and would like to get input on how best to phrase the question. This is my preliminary thought:

"A number of editors have proposed that a long standing section of the article dealing with religious interpretations be removed on the basis that non-scientific aspects of the big bang are irrelevant to the main article. Other editors believe that the article cannot strictly be scientific in nature if significant reliable sourcing exists on the subject of philosophical and religious interpretations.

The question posed in this RFC is: Does the fact that the big bang is a major scientific theory indicate that our article on the big bang can only be about the scientific aspect of it, in contrast to social, religious, philosophial, et al, interpretations and reactions?"

This is what I've come up with so far. Is it acceptable or would anyone like to make suggestions? N^oformation ^Talk 02:30, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

I think that as-written that would generate far more heat than light. I've found that questions work best if they're simple and if it's clear how their answers should be reflected in the article. My own suggestion would be something along the lines of the following:

• (v1) "Should the Big Bang article contain a section about religious interpretations of the Big Bang?" (the main point of contention)
• (v2) "How much space in the Big Bang article should be devoted to religious interpretations of the Big Bang?" (allows responses other than yes/no, but the downside is that you'll get a large number of different proposals)

"Philosphical interpretations" in this context is a red herring. That information hasn't been contested, or really even _present_, in the section in question over most of its tenure. The conflict is over the religious content, so make the RFC about it, so that it can finally be settled. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 08:01, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree with User:Noformation's suggestion. And also, we should include "philosophical interpretations" since the discussion above mentioned the inclusion of other philosophical views in that section. I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam^Talk 08:22, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Chris, I'm completely ok with your proposed wording. The only thing I'm interested in is whether the point gets across and though I think my wording does, yours does just as well. You're not proposing to disclude my introduction to the issue though, are you? I ask because I think the questions in isolation are hard to understand in context. I have no problem with a rewrite of my intro either, just want to make sure that you don't want to exclude it completely. N^oformation ^Talk 10:06, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Noformation - it is important to have an intro to give a context for the questions. And, specifically, the intro should mention the status quo, which is that the main article contains a short section on religious interpretations, with a link to a second article with more detailed information. Cards on the table - I am in favour of keeping the short religious interpretations section in the main article. Gandalf61 (talk) 10:15, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

In addition, the context of the brief introductory statement should also state the facts: the sources in the proposed summary style section have not been vetted for authority, relevance, or accuracy, and the main article in question is presently tagged for maintenance, including cleanup, lack of sources, and original research. Viriditas (talk) 10:27, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure this is relevant. The questions as posed by Chris are more hypothetical in nature and don't refer specifically to the section now. The point of the RFC is essentially to get feedback as to whether such a section should exist if sources are available, it doesn't have to be the sources or section we have now. It's a good idea to establish this early on, as there's no sense in spending time writing the section if it can't be included anyway. N^oformation ^Talk 23:50, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

RFC's don't deal in hypothetical what ifs; they deal with the current state of the article. In this case, we have a featured article using a summary style section whose sources haven't been properly vetted and whose parent article has three major maintenance tags, two of which are a year old. An RFC that asks "what if" is useless and is a breach of process. Viriditas (talk) 02:02, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

The problem is that there are comments in the previous section essentially saying that because this is a science article it can only have science in it and that's just not in line with current practices. If we get the "if" question out of the way we can deal with the "what." Still, I would recommend that Anupam or some other interested party get some decent sources to start working with. N^oformation ^Talk 02:29, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Viriditas, would you mind point out to me where in WP policy it states that RFCs cannot be hypothetical? I looked through WP:RFC and see nothing on the subject there. Thanks. N^oformation ^Talk 09:56, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

The question you meant to ask is, "point out to me where in WP policy it states that RFCs can be hypothetical?" Viriditas (talk) 02:18, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry but no it was not. We are not limited as editors to not do something until it is expressly allowed. If you're going to make the assertion that I can't call an RFC because it's hypothetical in nature you need to have a policy that backs that up. N^oformation ^Talk 08:37, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I think the proposed wording from Christopher Thomas is nice and succint - but perhaps including the intro to give it some context would be sensible. As for philosophical interpretations, I agree with CT, there is no content on philosophical interpretations in the article and until there is there is not really anything to discuss, unless you want to propose the creation of new material - which isn't really the purpose of an RFC. Polyamorph (talk) 13:24, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

I also agree with Christopher Thomas re a proposed RFC - esp "v1" -> "Should the Big Bang article contain a section about religious interpretations of the Big Bang?" - the main issue in discussion - a brief intro (as noted by Gandalf61, Viriditas and Polyamorph) may also be in order - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 15:54, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I should have said, the v1 wording in particular would be most suitable in my opinion. Cheers Polyamorph (talk) 18:27, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

I prefer Christopher Thomas' short version. I don't think the long version accurately summarizes the issue. I don't agree that religion is irrelevant to an article on the big bang, but I think devoting an entire section on it gives it undue weight, especially when it focuses on Catholicism and in the absence of other connections to non-scientific topics. Waleswatcher (talk) 21:00, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

I take it you won't object to the addition of a religion section to many-worlds interpretation and the formation and evolution of the Solar System. Perhaps we should mandate religion sections for every scientific theory. After all, everyone knows that the church is only used for discussing scientific theories. Viriditas (talk) 22:04, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I would object to adding such sections on the same grounds I object to this one. Waleswatcher (talk) 22:53, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

If reliable sources discuss religious interpretations of the many-words interpretation then why wouldn't we include it? I don't think such sources exist, but again, if academics are writing about something then it's simply our job to report it, not to second guess the experts. N^oformation ^Talk 23:48, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm surprised you are repeating the whole "it's our job to unquestioningly report" myth as it has been repeatedly debunked time and time again. I can't blame you, as many people continue to misunderstand what "verifiability, not truth" means. No, it is not our job to simply report what sources say. Our job is to evaluate the sources for authority, relevancy, currency, and accuracy, and to make an informed decision as to whether to report what the sources say or not. We're not robots. And just because an academic writes about something, doesn't mean we automatically include it. Viriditas (talk) 01:29, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

User:Viriditas, being a theory that discusses the origins of the universe, many sources do discuss the Big Bang in relation to religion and philosophy. This distinguishes this theory, in particular, from other scientific theories. Another scientific concept, evolution does have a section on "Social and Cultural Responses." Why aren't you advocating its removal? I look forward to your response. With regards, Anupam^Talk 01:56, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Other stuff exists. Please name the author and title of the best source you have on the subject of the Big Bang that discusses and highlights the importance of religion and philosophy. Just one please. Viriditas (talk) 01:58, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Here is more than 80000 books discussing the subject. Have fun.TR 16:54, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

How does a Google search return answer the question I have asked? I'll ask it again: please name the author and title of the best source you have on the subject of the Big Bang that discusses and highlights the importance of religion and philosophy. Viriditas (talk) 02:16, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

That's not a legitimate reply because you're holding a double standard. There are SEVERAL sources which discuss the Big Bang and include its philosophical implications: see the current section in the article. Thanks, Anupam^Talk 02:14, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

You've got it entirely backwards. Your response is not a legitimate argument. Other stuff exists. We're discussing this article. Which definitive source on this subject should I review? Please provide the author and title. Viriditas (talk) 02:16, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm well aware that verifiability is the threshold and is necessary but not sufficient for inclusion. Yes it is our job to make sure that sources that go in have been properly vetted via the guidelines at WP:RS, and I don't disagree that we need to make sure our sources are relevant authorities. I'm not saying that anyone can publish anything and that we have to report it, this is a definite newbie mistake. What I'm saying is that if high quality, academic sources published in academic presses exist on the subject and have made an impact in their relative field, then it's our job to report it. My apologies for not being more specific, I sometimes assume that the regulars will kind of read into what I'm saying wrt policy but I can understand that from your perspective this myth is widely propagated and comes up even among regular editors. So yeah, if the Harvard theology department is publishing literature regarding theological interpretations of the big bang (and I'm definitely not talking books here because I found some pretty ridiculous stuff in the popular press published by otherwise reputable professors) then I would think that it surpasses our threshold for inclusion by quite a bit. For another example, let's say the Pope wrote a statement saying that the catholic church has no problems with the big bang, and then offered their interpretation, I would say that should be included too. Not because the pope is an authority on science, but because the statement would have a large impact on millions of people throughout the world and the Pope is an authority on catholicism (and surely this would be published in many, many sources). I would never advocate that any source be used if it tried to paint the science as incorrect and then offered their own "science" in rebuttal - that is patently different.

Sorry for the somewhat long post, btw. Noformation Talk 01:37, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

AFAIK at the moment - religious authorities (greatly influential or not) have no scientific standing whatsoever in a scientific discussion - religion and science basically are much too far apart - as Stephen Hawking well noted, "There is a fundamental difference between religion, which is based on authority, (and) science, which is based on observation and reason..." - accordingly (and imo), there is no room scientifically in the "Big Bang" article for "religious (or related) interpretations" - esp by religious authorities - preserving such a non-scientific section seems less than worthy - for an otherwise worthy encyclopedic effort of a worthy scientific subject - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 04:55, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I think that a lot of this discussion should be happening in the RFC, not in the discussion of the phrasing of the question to ask. That's the purpose of an RFC: to solicit comments from the community, hopefully including well-thought-out arguments based on Wikipedia policy (and for content, on available sources).

That's also why I'm reluctant to put anything along the lines of "because of policy X, Y, and Z" in the question itself: that would steer conversation, putting a spin on the issue that should be argued on a per-responder basis rather than built in to the question itself.

Here's my v3 proposal; it's a little longer, but it attempts to give at least a little context with minimal bias:

• (v3) There is a section in the Big Bang article discussing religious views of the Big Bang model. The presence and content of this section have been the subject of frequent debate ([11][12][13][14]). To clarify consensus regarding content of the Big Bang article, the editors of that article ask the community to comment on the following question: Should the Big Bang article discuss religious interpretations of the Big Bang, and if so, how much space is appropriate to devote to that topic?

It's not perfect, but neither were my previous suggestions. It's the job of the editors commenting to provide opinions backed up by policy, not the people phrasing the question. This isn't a vote per se; instead, the editor closing the RFC gives opinions weight by the degree to which they're supported by policy-based arguments. For a topic this contentious about an article this high-profile, it might be worth asking for a triple-admin close (three uninvolved administrators familiar with policy perform the close, so that policy is properly taken into account and there are fewer allegations of bias or improper closure). This is unusual, but it does happen (usually for RFCs with a lot more drama than this one, but I'm playing it safe). --Christopher Thomas (talk) 04:14, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

The long and short of this is that after all the Rfc etc. there will be a See also reference with a very small mention somewhere. The religious angle is so far out fringe that the community at large will see through that. So do provide that option somehow to minimize the time wasted during the Rfc. I do wish people would avoid the Rfc, just use a See also, and go and improve the physics articles instead. This is an example of how technical content suffers in Wikipedia as a result of time channeled to dealing with fringe, semi-scientific views. History2007 (talk) 05:41, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

The fact that this continues to be vigorously debated, says to me that that is not certain to be the outcome. The whole point of an RFC is to find _out_ what the community, and wikipedia policies, say should be done about this content issue. At this point, that seems like about the only thing that will resolve the argument (to most peoples' dissatisfaction, no matter which direction it goes, but at least it can then stop being debated quite so often).

The option of having a "see also" and nothing else is already covered in the RFC question I proposed (v3). Answers to the question might range anywhere from "no, it should not be discussed at all", to "mentioned only in the form of a see also link", to "mentioned as a sentence somewhere", to "mentioned as a paragraph in a larger section about society's reactions/views", to "given its own full section". I certainly know which option _I'd_ prefer, but everyone here seems to have their own view on the matter. I expect we'll get quite a wide variety of responses in the RFC, too. That's why I chose my phrasing to not exclude any of these options. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 06:23, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Ok, you guys roll the Rfc dice and spend time on this. I will not watch this any more. In 30 days I will take a look. And I bet you 5 to 1 that there will be no large religious text here in 45 days, for users at large will rightly see it as "far out fringe" in the end. Fringe usually gets defended, it does not usually survive. History2007 (talk) 08:49, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

v3 looks fine to me, except that I would replace "discussing"/"discuss" with "mentioning"/"mention". The religious interpretations section does not discuss religious interpretations at length (nor should it) - it just mentions some of the most notable ones. Gandalf61 (talk) 08:54, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Done, and since there seems to be enough broad support, I've gone ahead and created the RFC. I _think_ I got the listing template right, but I'll check the relevant bot-maintained lists just to be sure. Assuming everything's working, I'll post a link to the RFC at WT:PHYS and WT:AST tonight. I've cross-categorized it as both a "science" and "religion" RFC, to avoid accusations of biasing the response pool. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 01:37, 28 February 2012 (UTC)