Jump to content

Talk:Big Bang/Archive 25

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 20←Archive 23Archive 24Archive 25

Semi-protected edit request on 12 April 2017

Kernelpi (talk) 23:34, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format.
By placing the template here on the talk page, it's not quite clear what you're after.
  • If you'd like the maintenance template Template:Technical added to the article, please explain exactly why, so as to allow other users to assess potential problem areas.
  • If you simply mean that you think the article is too technical for most readers, please just say so (without using the template). You should feel free to offer general suggestions without making a formal edit request. RivertorchFIREWATER 07:06, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Big Bang. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:08, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Big Bang. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:28, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 August 2017

We offer this article online now and suggest to link to it as a weblink: https://www.theologie-naturwissenschaften.de/startseite/leitartikelarchiv/big-bang.html (The article itself is in English) 193.248.137.120 (talk) 00:00, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Not done: If you are suggesting this website be added as an external link, Wikipedia articles are not collections of links and this link should not be added to this article. The sources utilized in the article's section on religious interpretations are of high standard for this articles featured quality status, and this website (presumably, your own website), would likely not be an appropriate addition should your request be in the proper format of "change X to Y". – Rhinopias (talk) 01:10, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Criticism Section is needed

Many scientists doubt the big bang theory and have published against it. A Criticism section should be added, for articles such as this: http://www.ibtimes.com/does-light-experiment-disprove-big-bang-theory-photon-energy-loss-questions-expanding-2560055 47.201.178.44 (talk) 13:59, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

 Not done. This request was dealt with over the years. Tired light is not a serious alternative and, to the extent that it is relevant to the historical development of the prevailing theory, is covered with appropriate WP:WEIGHT. jps (talk) 17:04, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Universe should begin with a capital U

The word Universe should begin with a capital U since it's a proper noun, just as the Sun and Moon are capitalized. It irks me every time I read about the "sun", the "moon" and the "universe" (as well as referring to other stars as "other suns", or other star systems as "solar systems"). I'd like to capitalize every instance of "universe" on this page, but as there are over 100 I thought it would be a good idea to announce it first before doing so, in case it was summarily reverted and my efforts were wasted. So, any objections? nagualdesign 01:06, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

I agree about "Sun" and "Moon", but I'm not aware that capitalising "universe" was an accepted practice. I'm not a native English speaker but that seems like taking things a bit far to me. Daß Wölf 01:46, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
... and to this native English speaker who reads the Oxford English Dictionary, the universe has never been a proper noun. Please do not capitalise a common noun. Dbfirs 07:25, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
At Wikipedia, and really anywhere else, the goal should be clarity of expression, not dogmatic rules. Nevertheless, the word "universe" is not a proper noun and is almost never capitalized (except incidentally, such as in song titles and the like). I'd be curious to know what source you can cite that says otherwise. The words "sun" and "moon" are not always capitalized, either; a common convention is to capitalize them when they're used to refer to the celestial bodies visible from Earth in the daytime, but that is a stylistic preference that many reliable sources do not follow. RivertorchFIREWATER 15:05, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
The Universe article uses a capital U throughout. It's a common method when discussing cosmology to distinguish between the Universe that we live in (proper noun) and other possible or theoretical universes (common noun). To be clear, when I was talking about the Moon (notice the the) I was indeed talking about Earth's moon, commonly called the Moon. As for the Sun (the star which we orbit) there are no other 'suns', but the word sun (lowercase) is commonly used to mean sunlight ("a week in the sun", "the sun was shining", etc.) Just because some reliable sources do not follow this convention (while others do) it does not automatically follow that we shouldn't. In fact, there are places within the Manual of Style that specifically state not to copy styles from sources. It is much better if Wikipedia picks its own styles and sticks to them. And please, don't patronize me by telling me you read the dictionary, as though that makes you any sort of authority, thanks. nagualdesign 15:56, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
There was no intention to patronise you, and I certainly make no claim to be an authority, but Wikipedia tends to follow major dictionaries in what they consider proper nouns. You asked for objections, and I was making one. Apologies if I expressed my objection in a way that could be misinterpreted. Dbfirs 16:49, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for that. I'm not convinced that 'major dictionaries' consider it a common noun at all. As I said, in the context of cosmology (and in particular theoretical cosmology) the Universe refers to our particular cosmos, while universe refers to others, hence Universe with a capital U has come to be a proper noun. Dictionaries, even major ones, generally speaking, are not considered an authority on anything. Their aim is to simply define words in common usage, and they change over time as language evolves.
Going back to what Rivertorch asked, "I'd be curious to know what source you can cite that says otherwise." I took the time to look through some of the references for this article to see which, if any, use a capital U. Notably NASA do not generally use a capital as they follow The Chicago Manual of Style (which also uses lowercase for solar system, contrary to Wikipedia's Manual of Style). Other references used in this article that do use a capital include UCLA, ESA, Cambridge University Press, Harvard, American Institute of Physics, Cornell, Astrophysical Journal and, I assume, many others (I grew tired of looking after checking less than half of them).
I should concede that the examples listed do not prove that those publications are always consistent, but you get the idea. Generally speaking, those who discuss the cosmos as though it were the whole shebang use universe, whereas those with a more progressive concept of the cosmos that includes theories of the multiverse use both Universe and universe, depending on the specific application. In short, the goal is indeed clarity of expression, and not simply applying dogmatic rules. Cheers. nagualdesign 18:11, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
Absolutely there are objections. This has been discussed, at length, over and over, on the appropriate forum -- the WP:MOSCAP talk page. For example here. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 17:21, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the link. I'll have a look at that. nagualdesign 18:11, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
I've recalled a more recent and more full list of discussions of the topic: Archive_23 Universe v. universe the section "Previous Discussions" by SchreiberBike. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 18:30, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
Thank you again, Peter. I'll give that one a read. I must say, the first RfC you linked to was as clear as mud, with no clear consensus having been reached. nagualdesign 19:01, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
Yes, I agree that Universe should have a capital U. I regard "Universe" as a proper noun when describing, as it normally does, the Universe. The theoretical concept of multiverse regards the Universe as one entity in a number of universes. It is a parallel of the capital G when discussing the Galaxy (the Milky Way Galaxy). TowardsTheLight (talk) 19:36, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

As usual, my favorite tool for settling this type of thing is google Ngram. Here is a google Ngram comparison of the uses of "universe" vs. "Universe" in English printed literature over the last two centuries. Quite consistently "universe" is ten times as common as "Universe". Some part of this may be attributed to people talking about hypothetical other universes, however this is likely a smaller portion as becomes immediately apparent when inlcuding "universes" in the comparison.TR 21:23, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

And that is of course to be expected, since Google Ngrams covers all books and is regardless of context. If it were possible to do a search of only books on cosmology I think you would find the results slightly less skewed. As I've already mentioned several times, the capital U is specifically used to distinguish this Universe from any other (something which only cosmologists are concerned with). Indeed, the whole concept of the Universe not necessarily encompassing all of creation is a very modern notion, books from the circa 1800 (long before the discovery of atoms, neutrons, plate tectonics, Relativity, quantum physics.. basically all of modern science) notwithstanding. I appreciate your input but, with all due respect, it settles nothing. It would be better to refer to modern sources within the field, such as the International Astronomical Union. If they're the ultimate authority on whether Pluto is to be considered a planet or not, for instance, then they ought to carry more weight than any old book, right? nagualdesign 21:51, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
By now I suppose you know that, in the WP:MOSCAP discussions, the IAU was brought up multiple times, so were the Ngram results, so was the claim it's a proper noun, so was capitalization in other articles, so was a survey of dictionaries. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:06, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
Forgive me, but I did not read every single comment in each of those discussions. I found some people's argumentative attitude (like repeating themselves verbatim in bold) tedious to the point of being unbearable. I've tried several times to find out whether or not the IAU use capitals and found nothing. Perhaps you could enlighten me? As for your comment above, your point escapes me I'm afraid. Were you just asking if I've read those comments? nagualdesign 17:35, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
Well luckily we can also search for "our universe" vs. "our Universe" or "the universe" vs. "the Universe", both of which show the same behavior: the non-capitalized version is much more common than the capitalized version. We can conclude from this that the practice of using capitalization the distinguish the universe we live in from a generic universe is not nearly as universal as you would claim. Most people seemingly just use "universe" regardless of whether they mean the one we live in or a generic one.TR 16:23, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
I don't wish to have to repeat myself (and I'll spare you the shouty bold text), but searching all books using Google Ngrams for those phrases is not the same as searching modern books about cosmology. When The Beatles sang "They slither while they pass, they slip away across the universe" we can be fairly certain that they didn't intend to make a distinction between this and other possible universes, even though they used the word the, right?
To be honest, having read a little bit of previous discussions, I've decided that I'd rather do anything else than spend my time attempting to engage in honest, dialectical debate with editors who are argumentative, shouty, or deliberately misrepresent something rather than calmly making their point. I hasten to add that I'm not putting you in that category, Timothy, but there are editors who are like that (many of whom frequent the MoS talk pages). If anyone else wishes to pursue this I'd be willing to stand up and be counted (feel free to ping me any time) but I'm not going to push this any further. Thanks to all the above editors on both sides for their time. I'm out of here. Regards, nagualdesign 17:35, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

I've participated in some of these discussions, and I don't care to again. I don't think we can reach a consensus either way. The only way I can see us going forward is to flip a coin (or some agreed upon lottery number) and let fate decide it. I agree that the present mixed use looks sloppy.  SchreiberBike | ⌨  22:21, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Fair enough. I've been involved in a few similar discussions over the years and my only real conclusion was that there are a great deal of editors (or at least a few very vocal ones) who hold WP:MOSCAPS in much higher regard than WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF, and see no irony in accusing other editors of being dogmatic. Ain't nobody got time for dat! So sloppy it shall remain. Ah well. nagualdesign 04:17, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
I hope to encourage you that sloppy might actually be the best of all possible Wikipedias: consistency is not forthcoming for our concept of the _niverse. This word can mean (off the top of my head) any of the following: Absolutely everything in existence, past present and future; everything in existence now; everything in existence now that's causally connected to us; everything in existence now that's theoretically visible to us; everything that we have seen; one of any number of causally disconnected realities supposed to exist; and a named set of fictional realities such as the Marvel universe; ...to name a few. To properly justify an uppercase / lowercase convention, (without reading the manual of style history) I suppose Wikipedia would need to do something like make a table of possible meanings showing which meanings are implied every time the word appears, and using some kind of rubric for whether the word is proper or not for each combination of meanings. Thinking of the reader, if the reader senses inconsistency with Universe, the reader may well be piqued to learn why this might be the case--- a good outcome. By contrast, if Wikipedia sacrificed accuracy with an attempt at stylistic unification, it would be slightly misleading AND miss a valuable pedagogical opportunity. -208.76.28.70 (talk) 15:44, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Big Bang. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:21, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 April 2017

Edit Request: As part of the movement to make scientific information more accessible to the general public, we are exploring wikipedia pages that may not communicate their ideas per the Tone requirements of Wikipedia in the Summary Section. When non-scientific people are curious about these topics, the wikipedia pages are often the first search result in Google. Though I agree that they should be a comprehensive description of the topic, the first two paragraphs can make or break whether that interested individual feels capable of digging deeper into the subject. Many are scared off. And surprisingly, by this page in particular!

Below are some suggestions for simplify the English and making a more inviting experience without compromising the message. Splitting long, comma-ridden sentences into two or three sentences. Removing passive voice where it is not necessary to keep the rigor of the message. Simplify unnecessary jargon.

These are all requested in consistency with the Wikipedia Tone suggestions: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Writing_better_articles#Tone

Example of English Simplification: ORIGINAL-- "The Big Bang theory is the prevailing cosmological model for the universe[1] from the earliest known periods through its subsequent large-scale evolution." SUGGESTED-- "The Big Bang theory is the prevailing model to describe the origin of the universe. This cosmological model also explains the evolution of the universe from the earliest known moments of existence until now. "

But the origin of the universe is not part of the Big Bang theory... properly speaking, the Big Bang Theory starts at the end of the Planck Era / Planck Scale and brings us through inflation to the present regime. -208.76.28.70 (talk) 23:13, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
Spot on. The Big Bang theory does not describe the origin of the Universe. That is a classic misconception among laypersons, particularly those who deride the theory. The above suggestion would misrepresent the theory and appear to confirm this major misconception. To be honest, I think the whole notion of attempting to make such complex topics accessible is a little misguided. You have to learn to walk before you can run. Unfortunately, the Universe is rather complex. nagualdesign 00:52, 2 November 2017 (UTC)


Examples of Jargon to rephrase or define: "extrapolated to the highest density regime" -- An attempt to google "highest density regime" yielded no results outside of published papers. ORIGINAL -- "If the known laws of physics are extrapolated to the highest density regime, the result is a singularity which is typically associated with the Big Bang." SUGGESTED -- "The mathematical approach of connecting the two theories of classical mechanics (general relativity and quantum mechanics), results in a singularity. This singularity is typically associated with the initial state of the universe the moment before the Big Bang." Kernelpi (talk) 23:21, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Not done: According to the page's protection level you should be able to edit the page yourself. If you seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. —MRD2014 📞 contribs 00:57, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
The SUGGESTED re-wording removes the term 'extrapolated', which is there to communicate the point that this is a region of astrophysics that has not been experimentally verified and is therefore outside the region in which the known laws of physics apply. 208.76.28.70 (talk) 23:13, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
Maybe we could re-write it this way: "If the known laws of physics are applied beyond where they are applicable, a singularity appears at the earliest and highest density regime which is sometimes associated with the Big Bang." -208.76.28.70 (talk) 15:34, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
"...applied beyond where they are applicable," is dubious sounding and unnecessary. If the known laws of physics are applied as far back as possible (ie, if we extrapolate right up to the point beyond which they are no longer applicable) the result is a singularity. If the phrase "highest density regime" is problematic, how about this: "If the known laws of physics are extrapolated to the earliest moment where they are applicable, the result is a singularity which is typically associated with the Big Bang." nagualdesign 17:54, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
Clearly, when you extrapolate a theory and it forms a singularity, it is no longer applicable at that point. More importantly, it probably has stop being applicable a bit before that.TR 23:10, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

There's a simple rubric for this: up to what energy level have particle physicists verified our theories? Anything higher and we can say that the laws of physics are inapplicable, given that the notion of physical law is bound up with the notion of observation. 208.76.28.70 (talk) 20:00, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

What is the big bang:

The big bang is the explanation of the universe. --BriannaOrdaz (talk) 21:22, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

I would prefer to say the the Big Bang is a description of the early state of the universe. Dbfirs 07:31, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
Quite right, and that's what the article says. The Big Bang theory doesn't explain the universe at all, that's a common misconception. ··gracefool 💬 10:22, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Big Bang/Bit Bang

Note to moderators: The expernal link http://BigBangBitBang.blogspot.com should be added. 73.46.49.164 (talk) 16:17, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

It is an interesting website, but it seems to push a particular point of view. Dbfirs 17:18, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

There is an omission regarding the CMB. The microwave radiation ('Cosmic Noise') was first measured by Robert Dicke in 1946 when he turned experimental horn type radiometer (similar to Penzias and Wilson's) to the sky and showed that cosmic noise, as he called it, had to be constrained to below 20K (the resolution of the instrument). He even shows a drawing of a tapered rectangular horn antenna similar to the one used by Penzias and Wilson. The results and his conclusion were published in a paper:

"Atmospheric Absorption Measurement with a Microwave Radiometer", Volume 70, numbers 4 and 5, September 1 and 15, 1946.

From the paper:"It is also found that there is very little (<20°K) radiation from cosmic matter at radiometer wavelengths." and "a small amount of cosmic noise if distributed uniformly in every direction does not introduce much error" (because it is below 20K)

And also a related paper discussing the techniques of measuring microwave energy: "The Measurement of Thermal Radiation at Microwave Frequencies Review of Scientific Instruments 17, 268 (1946) doi: 10.1063/1.1770483 http://dx.doi.org/10.1063/1.1770483 Published by the American Institute of Physics

Dicke, along with Peebles, wrote a series of papers in the 1950s predicting and describing the CMB. It was a public lecture on the CMB given by Dicke, attended by Penzias and Wilson, that alerted them to the nature of the noise they had been measuring. Dicke was planning an experiment to measure the CMB and the equipment was almost ready at the time of the Penzias and Wilson discovery. The article neglected to mention Peebles and Dicke's contribution to the prediction of the CMB, a prediction guided by an actual measurement 20 years earlier.

Semi-protected edit request on 15 March 2018

Change from -

Ultimate fate of the universe
Main article: Ultimate fate of the universe

Before observations of dark energy, cosmologists considered two scenarios for the future of the universe. If the mass density of the universe were greater than the critical density, then the universe would reach a maximum size and then begin to collapse. It would become denser and hotter again, ending with a state similar to that in which it started—a Big Crunch.[1]

Change to -

Ultimate fate of the universe
Main article: Ultimate fate of the universe

Cosmologists consider two scenarios for the future of the universe. If the mass density of the universe were greater than the critical density, then the universe would reach a maximum size and then begin to collapse. It would become denser and hotter again, ending with a state similar to that in which it started—a Big Crunch.[1]

Reason - is in past tense- no observations yet proven. Woodhe (talk) 13:53, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: It's not clear if "no observations yet proven" was to mean that no observations of dark energy have proven the fate of the universe or that no observations of dark energy have been proven to have taken place. Spintendo      14:47, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

No consensus for the Big Bang Theory

Science Daily says there is hardly a consensus among scientists for the big bang theory. This should be quoted in Wikipedia's article. Source : https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/11/171127105935.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.201.178.44 (talk) 03:42, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

That article is a bit confused. For one it seems to confuse inflation with the big bang theory. The main content of the big bang theory is that the early universe at some stage was hot and dense before expanding and cooling to its current state. For this there is overwhelming consensus.TR 08:18, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
This Wikipedia article does the same thing. Is that really confusion? ··gracefool 💬 12:18, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

The exact quote is this, and it should be included in the Wikipedia article:

Although for five decades, the Big Bang theory has been the best known and most accepted explanation for the beginning and evolution of the Universe, it is hardly a consensus among scientists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.201.178.44 (talk) 14:22, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

The ScienceDaily article says there is a lack of consensus about the necessity for a singularity at the origin of the universe. The first paragraph in the Wikipedia article already mentions this : "Physicists are undecided whether this means the universe began from a singularity, or that current knowledge is insufficient to describe the universe at that time". There is consensus about the development of the universe from the electroweak epoch onwards, when the physics of the early universe is described by the Standard Model. Gandalf61 (talk) 16:46, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
No, it is not just the singularity that is questioned by Science Daily. The Science Daily quote criticizes the big bang theory for the beginning and the evolution of the universe, and says there is NO consensus. The Science Daily quote should be inserted into Wikipedia's article. 47.201.178.44 (talk) 12:56, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
No matter what it says, it is not a reliable source since it is essentially a press release.TR 13:22, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
There is no problem with a press release from an established group that reviews and reports on the published literature. The quote should be included in Wikipedia. 47.201.178.44 (talk) 19:11, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
An offhand comment in a press release does not trump a wealth of existing sources in the article. Besides, see WP:UNDUE. Daß Wölf 21:18, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
you all make some excellent points, and there is disagreement which is to be expected in free discourse; I would just suggest that the statement in the present version that it is "now universally accepted" should be rewritten, not so much for the unintended pun, but for the over-reach of the statement.APDEF (talk) 09:52, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Skepticism

Big Bang skepticism needs an article. Sufficient, sent, discuss. -Booksnarky (talk) 02:51, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Lie: Since Georges Lemaître first noted in 1927 that an expanding universe could be traced back in time to an originating single point

Truth (accord to my level of knowledge): Eureka (1848) (E. A. Poe - "From the one Particle, as a centre let us suppose to be irradiated spherically...") Tomas Bilina (talk) 05:47, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Urgent help needed to fix 5 cosmology errors related to the Big Bang in the article Chronology of the universe

There are quite a few errors/ambiguities concerning Big Bang coverage in the related article Chronology of the universe. Some are actively misinforming readers. They need someone who can fix them.

Link: Talk:Chronology of the universe#Technical errors/ambiguities on the page, knowledgeable editing required to fix them

Please look! Thank you. FT2 (Talk | email) 06:52, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Big bang started as a result of quantum fluctuations of false vaccum

Can some one add about the beginning of big bang as a result of quantum fluctuations of metastable false vaccum.[2] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.226.136.96 (talk) 08:04, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ a b Cite error: The named reference kolb_c3 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/is-all-the-universe-from-nothing/

Georges Lemaître

Hi everyone,

Big Bang Theory concept is from Georges Lemaître.

And I would like to add in the text :

"Georges Lemaître, a belgian catholic, first noted in 1927 that an expanding universe could be traced back in time to an originating single point, scientists have built on his idea of cosmic expansion. The scientific community was once divided between supporters of two different theories, the Big Bang and the Steady State theory, but a wide range of empirical evidence has strongly favored the Big Bang which is now universally accepted.

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stouf1605 (talk • contribs) 14:45, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 July 2018

there is a 9 year made image of the univers that is color coded, yet there is no definition of the color codes. It is stated that the colors represent age, but what do the colors represent? The image is credited to NASA / WMAP Science Team. Please explain what colors mean. 67.40.125.146 (talk) 02:19, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

The colors show temperature. --Danski454 (talk) 12:20, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Sir Joseph (talk) 19:54, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Should there be a discussion of where the origination point is of the "big bang"?

I didn't find in the article the location of the origination point of the Big Bang. Is that an intolerable omission? (PeacePeace (talk) 04:03, 29 July 2018 (UTC))

It was everywhere, because there was nothing else. HiLo48 (talk) 04:05, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
Or, in other words, the location of the origin of the Big Bang is not discussed because a) it's hard to find the center of an expanding universe and b) good luck finding reputable and reliable sources discussing such a location.--Mr Fink (talk) 05:18, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
We could certainly discuss why there is no such point - it's a common question and I'm sure it's not hard to find reliable sources that discuss it. Waleswatcher (talk) 11:07, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Flatness Problem

The Einstein-Cartan theory avoids the flatness problem as well as unphysical singularities. I believe this link needs be included in the Flatness Problem section. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein%E2%80%93Cartan_theory#Avoidance_of_singularities47.201.190.53 (talk) 19:26, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

The shrinking universe hypothesis (all matter shrinks but space doesn't, near matter shrinks in groupings)

(Extremely old postulation. I don't claim it's right or wrong. It has to be mentioned. If you mathematically fix it well it's absolutely equivalent with the popular theory (I repeat, fix it well - because some fix it to fail because they love the standard religion), and you can think among theories when you face something difficult. Then you can discribe in different ways the same phenomena.)


Everything shrinks (gets impacted by dark energy) from an initial ultra dense state. We call it big bang.

Afar light doesn't shrink but afar matter does, so we interpret the light as being stretched.

Near matter and near light, shrinks almost with the same pace, except for a tiny percentage which contributes to gravity and dark matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:587:4104:9000:B82A:A462:371:563F (talk) 20:34, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

What if light didn't become of lower energy, but if matter itself was bigger? (it cannot work, it's wrong, and we have to say why! If matter was bigger we would have different quantization numbers, except if the fields were equivalently bigger, but then...) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:587:4104:9000:B82A:A462:371:563F (talk) 20:43, 15 October 2018 (UTC)


You might have to add some parameters but it's absolutely the same. Also you might have to create some lies as explanations. If you want to, it works. Why to do it? Not because the shrinking universe is a fact or superior. Simply because it will allow you to think in two different ways. That's the whole point. Not the egoism of some particular dogma, but the ability to play from both sides!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:587:4104:9000:B82A:A462:371:563F (talk) 20:47, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
That's interesting and all, but you need to have a source for any information before it can be put into the article. Original research, regardless of it being comprehensive or not, isn't sufficient. 74.132.8.133 (talk) 13:24, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Big Bang Forbidden

There are viable alternatives to general relativity which forbid singularities such as the Big Bang. This should be mentioned in Wikipedia's Big Bang article. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein%E2%80%93Cartan_theory#Avoidance_of_singularities 47.201.190.53 (talk) 02:51, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

That section doesn't cite any sources, which is normally a requirement. The statements need sources to even be worth considering, since they won't go onto this page without them. 74.132.8.133 (talk) 13:28, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
Three sources are now added.47.201.190.68 (talk) 04:31, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

What is going on with the caption for the graphic immediately below the words "Part of a series on Physical Cosmology" ?

What is going on with the caption for the graphic immediately below the words "Part of a series on Physical Cosmology" ? If you click on the picture, the caption beneath seems inappropriately long and rambling. I'm not qualified to judge its accuracy, but it looks a little fishy to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:645:C000:AF7B:9104:FDB8:FFE5:BF20 (talk) 23:16, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

no beginning

The dying stars are the brightest stars. They and their orbiters are shrinking in size and distance. When we look out as far as we can see the normal emitters are interfered out of view by these dying stars. Therefore, rather than expansion the most visible emitters are simply getting smaller. THERE IS NO EXPANSION, no beginning. Even life that is trapped inside Volcanic rock under the sea has no beginning. It is simply redistributed when a a planet breaks up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.132.9.140 (talk) 11:55, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your opinion. You might be interested to read Steady state model, a theory that I recall Fred Hoyle putting forward very convincingly many years ago. It is now considered unlikely by modern scientists. Dbfirs 12:03, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Causality Big Bang

As the Universe accelerates, after some period loses all innate causal connection among its components and reBig Bangs.
just another theory - we should mention all theories — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:587:4102:8000:9598:4471:8BEA:5385 (talk) 16:35, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

User:Oldstone James confusing edits

User:Oldstone James firstly changed content from "Current conception of the Big Bang model assumes the existence of energy, time, and space, and does not comment about their origin or the cause of the dense and high temperature initial state of the universe" to "Current conception of the Big Bang model assumes the existence of energy as well as currently understood laws of physics and does not comment about their origin or the cause of the dense and high temperature initial state of the universe." which made no sense, and then changed it to "Current conception of the Big Bang model assumes the existence of energy as well as the existence of currently understood laws of physics about their origin or the cause of the dense and high temperature initial state of the universe" which also made no sense. Then it was been changed to "assumes the existence of energy and does not comment about their origin" to what is "their" referring to now? I asked. Please gain consensus here for any further changes. Theroadislong (talk) 18:44, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Please stop edit warring to add confusing content NOT supported by the source, the source clearly states "The Big Bang scenario simply assumes that space, time, and energy already existed" [1] Theroadislong (talk) 20:10, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Model vs Theory

Since this is a scientific page, it should follow scientific terminology.

The word "theory" is very specific in the field of science. I recommend reading https://curiosity.com/topics/whats-the-difference-between-a-fact-a-hypothesis-a-theory-and-a-law-in-science-curiosity/.

The Big Bang has withstood multiple tests and evidence has been provided for it to have happened. In such a situation, it should not be called a theory.

Even Britannica shows this: https://www.britannica.com/science/big-bang-model. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.4.213.114 (talk) 12:54, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

It's an interesting alternative title. However, there's no problem with theory, as long as it means scientific theory. —PaleoNeonate – 12:57, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
Agree with the reply - in the scientific sense, the term “theory” tends to imply that the intention is to create a set of principles that can be applied to large-scale and generalised Studies, whereas a “model” is a set of principles that would be used to illustrate more specific and narrowly-defined phenomena. Hence, Atomic theory has typically made use of differing models, such as the Plum Pudding Model to demonstrate various phenomena and viewpoints within the larger theory. SmallMossie (talk) 23:42, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Misquotation of source

The part of the Wright article that is currently cited in note 9 does not say that the Big Bang Theory explains Hubble’s Law, as the wiki article currently states in the opening paragraph. The cited reference states that the expansion of the universe is evidence of the Big Bang. SmallMossie (talk) 21:27, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Theories are often circular. The precession of the perihelion of Mercury is explained by GR, but it is also evidence for GR. jps (talk) 21:29, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

This article has not undergone a Featured Article Review since 2007; in the meantime, our FA standards have risen dramatically, and I don't believe that this article currently passes them.

  • For starters, the "Overview" section, which may or may not even be needed, has a {{Refimprove}} tag, which right away would disqualify it from appearing as Today's Featured Article and would probably disqualify it if it had to go through FAC right now.
  • There are many uncited paragraphs throughout the article.
  • The "Misconceptions" sections is suboptimally formatted and needs a good copyedit to be rewritten as prose rather than a list.

That's only what I've seen so far for my first run through. I'll see whether these problems can be fixed, and to what extent I can help, but if these issues are unaddressed I'm afraid I'll have to bring this to FAR. However, other cosmology articles do have high quality and I wouldn't be surprised to find this reparable.

– John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 07:12, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Why is "The Message of The Qur'an" listed in bibliography?

The Message of The Qur'an is an English translation and interpretation of the Qur'an by Muhammad Asad, an Austrian Jew who converted to Islam, and its listed in the bibliography. What does that have to do with Big Bang theory? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Conspiracy of Equals (talk • contribs) 15:08, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Because it is being used to source the statement "and some see (the Big Bang')s mention in their holy books" in the religious interpretation section.--Mr Fink (talk) 15:25, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Edit reverted

This edit of mine was reverted by @Szymioza: with no reason given. I moved it because it belonged in the discussion of the evolution of the big bang, rather than in the Pre-Big Bang Cosmology. I still believe that, so I would like to understand why that is not a good reason. Thanks. (Hmm, the user's talk page contains a number of warning tags, so perhaps there was not a good reason?) Praemonitus (talk) 19:23, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Reason

In my opinion in belongs in the Pre-Big Bang Cosmology. That's because it explains that big bang was "possible" (no energy needed) and how matter could go into existence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Szymioza (talk • contribs) 22:25, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Right, well then all that is needed is this:
A topologically flat universe implies a balance between gravitational potential energy and other forms, requiring no additional energy to be created.
The observation about quantum fluctuations certainly isn't needed there; it should be covered earlier. Since you did an undo while this is under discussion, I went ahead with the refactoring. Praemonitus (talk) 23:15, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
P.S. The specific reason I'm trying to clean up this section is that it is one of the issues specifically mentioned in the FAR. I think it needs to have a tighter focus, and to leave the rest of the Big Bang history to the other sections.

So, you might be right with the quantum fluctuations. Now, it's good after adding "A topologically flat universe implies a balance between gravitational potential energy and other forms, requiring no additional energy to be created". Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Szymioza (talk • contribs) 11:15, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. Praemonitus (talk) 16:30, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Quantum fluctuations

Hello. There is a list of possible 'causes' of the Big Bang in the Pre-Big Bang Cosmology section. The simplest model of Big Bang 'cause' is still absent there, though. I had added it some time ago:

  • The simplest models, in which the Big Bang was caused by quantum fluctuations. That scenario had very little chance of happening, but it took place instantly, in our perspective, due to the absence of time before the Universe.[1][2][3]

Unfortunately, this edit was deleted, even though I gave reliable sources. What is wrong with it, and how could I make it better?

It was removed with this edit with the comment, "Not supported by sources, looks like original research, get consensus on talk page". Praemonitus (talk) 15:13, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, but the case is I gave the sources. Isn't, for example, New York Times reliable? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Szymioza (talk • contribs) 15:23, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

You would think so. A blog is sometimes questionable though. You might add a ref. to the Physical Review article.[2] Other that that, I think we need more input from the user making the edit, @Dkspartan1835. Praemonitus (talk) 20:17, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

The user is not responding. I have even left a message on their talk page. Maybe, I will just post the edit again, while adding more sources, as you recommended. Then I will see how it is received. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Szymioza (talk • contribs) 19:50, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "A Mathematical Proof That The Universe Could Have Formed Spontaneously From Nothing". Medium. April 11, 2014.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  2. ^ Wall, Mike (June 24, 2012). "The Big Bang Didn't Need God to Start Universe, Researchers Say". Space.com.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  3. ^ Overbye, Dennis (May 22, 2001). "Before the Big Bang, There Was . . . What?". The New York Times.{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)

Cause

There is no informations about the hipothetical cause of the Big Bang. I created this subsection and I want to put this to 'speculations' section, but my changes were reverted many times. Please tell me what's wrong with it and what i am supposed to change. Text:

Main article: Problem of why there is anything at all

Physics may conclude that time did not exist before 'Big Bang', but 'started' with the Big Bang, so there might be no 'beginning' or 'before'.[1][2] Universe is almost flat (zero balance of energy), so no energy had to be created[3][4] and probably Quantum fluctuations (or other laws of physics) 'after' (or 'instantly', because there was no time) the eternal, unchanging 'era' before the time could then randomly create the conditions for matter to occur.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Szymioza (talk • contribs) 20:32, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "No Big Bang? Quantum equation predicts universe has no beginning". Retrieved 26 April 2017.
  2. ^ "The Beginning of TIme". Stephen Hawking. Retrieved 26 April 2017.
  3. ^ "A Universe from Nothing". Astronomical Society of the Pacific. Retrieved 10 March 2010. by Alexei V. Filippenko and Jay M. Pasachoff
  4. ^ "A Universe From Nothing lecture by Lawrence Krauss at AAI". 2009. Retrieved 17 October 2011.

~~ the Big Bang theory cannot describe what the conditions were at the very beginning of the universe, it can help physicists describe the earliest moments after the start of the expansion I believe should be put in the introduction and referenced to https://home.cern/science/physics/early-universe — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C8:6F80:5B00:2C4B:CD53:350C:E168 (talk) 16:08, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

The Big Bang model should be put in the Speculations category because there is no definitive proof that this happened. I am a Christian but I’m not going to pressure my beliefs, all theories of how time began should be placed in the Speculations category. B RexT Rex (talk) 15:05, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Whether you consider it "definitive proof" or not, there is strong evidence for this theory. Therefore it is not speculative reason, which requires an absence of evidence. The multiverse falls into the category of speculative reason as it is purely hypothetical. Hence, I disagree with your suggestion. Praemonitus (talk) 15:50, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

rephrased prepositions

User:Sparkie82: I rephrased the sentence you were objecting to. Now that I understand what you were objecting to, I can see how those prepositions were confusing. Does this version work better for you? I'm still not quite happy with the phrasing. - Parejkoj (talk) 19:11, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

I figured it was some kind of semantic misunderstanding. I tweaked it a bit more. Thanks. Sparkie82 (t•c) 07:09, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Three big bangs

There are three different ways that the term the Big Bang is used in cosmology. One is to describe the overarching theory, one is to describe the singularity, and one is to describe the event of initial expansion post-singularity. I think it is worth highlighting this in the lede as it seems to be a source of confusion for some. I tried my best to handle this, but there may be a better way, of course. jps (talk) 01:39, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Baryogenesis issue

At first glance there seems to be a conflict between these two sentences:

  • ...leading to a very small excess of quarks and leptons over antiquarks and antileptons—of the order of one part in 30 million.
  • ...a mass annihilation immediately followed, leaving just one in 1010 of the original protons and neutrons, and none of their antiparticles.

Am I missing something? Shouldn't the two values be the same, or some simple ratio thereof? They differ by >300. Praemonitus (talk) 17:47, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

One part in 10^10 is an underestimate, I think, but I also believe the Kolb & Turner 30 million to one number may be out-of-date as well. billion to one is indicated here. In principle, this can be calculated from the CMB photon density as described in rough detail at Baryon asymmetry (but maddeningly not actually calculated using the observed values at that article). I could dig up old notes on the subject, but I agree that we should try to get the consistent fraction decided upon. jps (talk) 01:45, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
Here is a rough estimate for 100 million to one as the correct ratio relying on the standard treatment of the asymmetry: [3]:

This ratio remained constants[sic] during the expansion of the universe and was therefore the same in the early, hot universe. When the universe was very hot, all particles were relativistic, and g∗S ~ 102. Therefore η ~ g∗SnB/s ~ 10−8, and assuming there were about as many baryons as antibaryons as photons (nb ∼ n¯b ∼ nγ), this gives (nb − n¯b )/nb ~ 10−8. Now assume that all the baryons were quarks, i.e. no nucleons had been formed yet, and we can conclude that for every 100 million antiquarks there were roughly 100 million and 1 quark. A tiny asymmetry but with important consequences!

Getting more accurate than this estimate is model dependent and will change with the precise choice of baryogenesis model, I believe. jps (talk) 17:28, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
Now fixed both here and at baryogenesis. g* is important, friends! jps (talk) 13:15, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 May 2021

In the section on History - Development, there is a line referring to the accelerating expansion of the universe, ending with the "[citation needed]" statement. Here is the text fragment: Cosmologists now have fairly precise and accurate measurements of many of the parameters of the Big Bang model, and have made the unexpected discovery that the expansion of the universe appears to be accelerating.[citation needed] I propose adding the citation:

  • Riess, A. G.; Filippenko, A.V.; Challis, P.; Clocchiatti, A.; Diercks, A.; Garnavich, P.M.; Gilliland, R.L.; Hogan, C.J.; Jha, S.; Kirshner, R.P.; Leibundgut, B.; Phillips, M.M.; Reiss, D.; Schmidt, B.P.; Schommer, R.A.; Smith, R.C.; Pyromilio, J.; Stubbs, C.; Suntzeff, N.B.; Tonry, J. (1998). "Observational Evidence from Supernovae for an Accelerating Universe and a Cosmological Constant". Astronomical Journal. 116: 1009-1038.
  • Perlmutter, S.; Aldering, G.; Goldhaber, G.; Knop, R.A.; Nugent, P.; Castro, P.G.; Deustua, S.; Fabbro, S.; Goobar, A.; Groom, D.E.; Hook, I.M.; Kim, A.G.; Kim, M.Y.; Lee, J.C.; Nunes, N.J.; Pain, R.; Pennypacker, C.R.; Quimby, R.; Lidman, C.; Ellis, R.S.; Irwin, M.; McMahon, R.G.; Ruiz-Lapuente, P.; Walton, N.; Schaefer, B.; Boyle, B.J.; Filippenko, A.V.; Matheson, T.; Fruchter, A.S.; Panagia, N.; Newberg, H.J.M.; Couch, W.J. (1999). "Measurements of Omega and Lambda from 42 High-Redshift Supernovae". Astrophysical Journal. 517: 565-586. Sivertz (talk) 15:41, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
 Done in revision 1025326597, I added DOI and arXiv links. TGHL ↗ 🍁 00:08, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 May 2021

The Big Bang Is not formed by an sigularity but formed when one Ununoctium atom and its anti paricle blasted and the annihalte so these annahilation expanded the universe. Sanjay007123456 (talk) 00:35, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

To editor Sanjay007123456:  Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 03:05, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

make page: pre-explosive state (cosmogony)

  • the Before the Big Bang [pre-explosive state] theories

According to most physicists the term "precosmic state" is wrong (even that state is one period of the cosmic state/wavefunctional evolution of the universe), because space-time pre-existed (see: Stephen Hawking) necessarily (even in a different state in some theories).

The common theory is that our surrounding causal subluminal sphere was a spot (but not of exactly zero volume), and the whole spacetime/universe was still infinite (actually potentially infinite for each observer as it is now; because there is no IMMEDIATE causal connection outside each arbitrary observer's causal sphere [but there is some relay of causality; not only the central region exists in the causal spheres]) but denser.

I suggest you try posting a request at: 'Wikipedia:Requested articles/Natural sciences#Astronomy and cosmology'. Thanks. Praemonitus (talk) 15:22, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 June 2021

In the part "Hubble law and expansion of space", it is said that D is the comoving distance and that it varies as the universe expands (precisely "The theory requires the relation {\displaystyle v=HD}{\displaystyle v=HD} to hold at all times, where {\displaystyle D}D is the comoving distance"), but this is inconsistent with the definition of comoving distance, which by definition does not vary with the expansion. Also, following "Cosmology" from Weinberg, one has v = H*l, where l is this proper distance, since from FLRW metric, one can consider a fixed time so that proper distance is given by l = a(t)*ksi, where a(t) is the scale factor and ksi the comoving distance. When time-differentiated, it yields the above formula, namely v = H*l, q.e.d. 128.179.161.200 (talk) 08:32, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

 Done: I've fixed it. Not sure why it said comoving. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 01:46, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 October 2021

168.212.126.191 (talk) 17:37, 14 October 2021 (UTC)The Big Bang Theory is the leading explanation about how the universe began. At its simplest, it says the universe as we know it started with an infinitely hot, infinitely dense singularity, then inflated — first at unimaginable speed, and then at a more measurable rate — over the next 13.8 billion years to the cosmos that we know today.
 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:45, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Unnecessary Comma

Under "Features of the Model" in the "Expansion of Space" section, there's an unnecessary comma in this sentence:

In this coordinate system, the grid expands along with the universe, and objects that are moving only because of the expansion of the universe, remain at fixed points on the grid.

The third comma is not needed; I'm pretty sure it's ungrammatical. Does-she-talk (talk) 22:44, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

 Fixed. Thanks. –CWenger (^ • @) 23:00, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Timeline cooling wording

Under timeline, then under cooling we have this phrasing : -- The temperature was now no longer high enough to create new proton–antiproton pairs (similarly for neutrons–antineutrons), so a mass annihilation immediately followed, leaving just one in 108 of the original matter particles and none of their antiparticles.

This should be two sentences, and these parenthes are not needed. Could this be replaced with something like: -- The temperature was no longer high enough to create either new proton–antiproton or neutrons–antineutrons pairs. A mass annihilation immediately followed, leaving just one in 108 of the original matter particles and none of their antiparticles. 107.202.75.102 (talk) 21:05, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

That seems fine to me. Your re-write provides better pacing and is easier to read out loud. Praemonitus (talk) 16:09, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
 Done. Thanks. Praemonitus (talk) 14:55, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 February 2022

CMB in the third paragraph should hyperlink to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_microwave_background 2A01:4C8:1562:EEC9:F93E:54AE:BCA1:70A9 (talk) 12:39, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Cosmic microwave background is already linked in the first paragraph (with CMB in parentheses), and we have this guideline called MOS:REPEATLINK that discourages repeat linking. Praemonitus (talk) 14:20, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Big Wave Theory

There is this recent theory called Big Wave Theory (many articles online) that is not contemplated on the Ultimate Fate of the Universe section of this article. Was it left out for some reason? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Luckylemming (talk • contribs) 17:15, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

I only see a few publications on the topic, so it might not have reached a sufficient threshold of notability yet. Plus the term "big wave" is used in other contexts. Praemonitus (talk) 15:53, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
It appears to be a proposal from over a decade ago [4] that had no discernible influence after a smattering of pop-science stories. That's far below the threshold for inclusion here. XOR'easter (talk) 18:56, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Lead graphic conveys misleading expansion rate

The lead graphic is a misleading introductory visualisation of universe expansion. Please see my critique here; https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File_talk:CMB_Timeline300_no_WMAP.jpg#Graphical_representation_of_the_expansion_of_the_universe Richardbrucebaxter (talk) 00:58, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

I suggest you take your concerns to NASA and see if they are willing to update the image. A modified version of that image would conflict with the WP:OR policy of Wikipedia. At least the caption says "not to scale". Praemonitus (talk) 12:41, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Problems with the lead

I see some issues with the lead, which is supposed to be "introduction to the article and a summary of its most important contents". First, there is no mention of baryon asymmetry, which is why we're even here to talk about it. It talks about dark matter and dark energy, but never mentions that they are unexplained by the theory. In fact, I'm not clear why we need most of the third paragraph. Finally, it spends an entire paragraph talking about big bang vs. steady state theory, which actually forms a pretty minor part of the article. Hence, I think it needs a rewrite to better reflect the article content. Thanks. Praemonitus (talk) 02:33, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

I was WP:BOLD and addressed my concerns with edits to the lead. I'm sure it can be improved. Praemonitus (talk) 15:28, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

precosmic state (religion) vs precosmic state (philosophy) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:2149:8B03:1000:50F8:F9A8:F91F:690E (talk) 05:51, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

This page is about improving the Big Bang article. If you want to suggest new articles, I recommend you go to Wikipedia:Requested articles (WP:RA). Praemonitus (talk) 15:14, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

"Big Bang Theory" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Big Bang Theory and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 May 6#Big Bang Theory until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. BilledMammal (talk) 11:56, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

"The result of the discussion was move DAB to title..." Praemonitus (talk) 15:16, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Physical theory

Why is the big bang described as "physical theory" instead of just "theory"? Seems confusing! BigBroster (talk) 01:06, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

The term "theory" has a broad definition and can be applied to concepts that aren't necessarily scientific; it also gets abused and improperly applied. Instead, "physical theory" (or even "scientific theory") is more specific. A physical theory is a model of physical events, which is how it is being applied in this article. Praemonitus (talk) 03:30, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 July 2023

"Big Bang Bogan" youtube channel link (https://www.youtube.com/@BigBangBogan), was created based on the inspiration from Big Bang theory Santhanakrishnan25 (talk) 14:22, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 14:28, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Conflation of different hypotheses

With recent discoveries from the James Webb Telescope drawing attention to this topic, this Wikipedia article is apparently creating some confusion to readers conflating "Big Bang" with three different hypotheses: the initial singularity, the expanding universe, and a particular model for the expansion of the universe. One expert better describes this article's issues that need to be addressed: https://nautil.us/the-trouble-with-the-big-bang-238547. --MPerel 16:34, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

"This confusion between the expansion of the universe and the Big Bang Event becomes apparent, for example, just by looking at the Wikipedia entry for Big Bang. It starts out in the first paragraph referring to something called the “Big Bang theory,” and explains that this is the theory for the expansion of the universe. In the second paragraph, the Big Bang theory is distinguished from its extrapolation to the Big Bang singularity. But by the fourth paragraph the distinction has gotten lost, and we are informed, “A wide range of empirical evidence strongly favors the Big Bang, which is now essentially universally accepted.” The reader is misled to think that evidence for the expansion of the universe is evidence that the universe began with the Big Bang Event, which is incorrect."
If Sabine Hossenfelder wants to edit the article to suit her desired distinctions, then she is welcome to do so. BirdValiant (talk) 23:42, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
Sure, or any other astrophysicist will do as well. Whatever improves the article to clear up the confusion. If this was my area of expertise I would give a go of it myself, but I’m just an interested reader. --MPerel 10:06, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
What fortunate timing! I just happen to have her standing behind this potted palm. – AndyFielding (talk) 12:38, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
I attempted to address this concern with edits to the lead section, but I'm sure it can be improved. Praemonitus (talk) 14:16, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
I actually came here to better understand how the Webb observations had disproved the theory (or such was my understanding), and was surprised to find no mention of the Webb anywhere. Is this article that out-of-date? Wikipedians seem to add things like celebrity deaths with barely any perceptible delay... The universe's origins seem at least as important. 🤷🏽‍♂️ – AndyFielding (talk) 12:36, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
Because JWST observations have not "disproved the theory"; there's nothing to say here. Perhaps in an article on galaxy formation and evolution, but it's all pretty WP:RECENT. - Parejkoj (talk) 17:34, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
This article may provide some insight: "Explained: The Deal With Eric Lerner Saying the Big Bang Didn’t Happen". At the moment, Eric J. Lerner's views don't have much support in the scientific community. (Cf. WP:FALSEBALANCE.) The issue likely is about galaxy formation models, which may be in need of revision depending on the Webb results. But that's to be expected. Praemonitus (talk) 00:05, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
CORRECTION: Three different hypotheses: the initial singularity of this Universe, the inflation of this Universe, and a particular model for the expansion of this Universe. 2607:FB91:19F2:D056:9C77:A10D:3624:34E9 (talk) 02:37, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

The Impossibly Early Galaxy Problem

I suggest we update article on recent findings by JWST and followed studies and "rethinkings" of the Big Bang theory. [5][6][7] AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 07:25, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

See also Galaxies in the Early Universe AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 07:28, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Not based on a single paper and a pop-science media story, we shouldn't. XOR'easter (talk) 19:14, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
Well, I think more to come. It's been almost 1.5 years since first discover of the early galaxy-field. Let's see... AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 20:06, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
It may no longer be an issue.[8][9] The topic is mentioned here: Bright early galaxies . Praemonitus (talk) 23:14, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
Thanks. I've made similiar subsection on that earlier ([Jul 19, 2023, 15:50][Jul 19, 2023, 13:04]) but it was reverted, sadly. AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 07:05, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
I propose to avoid explanations for these early galaxies cause all them are basically speculations without substantial ground. AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 07:15, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
Yes, I think it all fell under ECREE and was just WP:TOOSOON. It's better to wait until the evidence is settled before using it to tear down Big Bang. Praemonitus (talk) 13:16, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Hello, I noticed the first mention of the "FLRW model" does not link to an existing Wikipedia article that further expands on the first use of this acronym, and I believe that it would be a helpful addition for context. OverwhelmingOdds (talk) 00:01, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

 Fixed. –CWenger (^ • @) 01:25, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Needs more sources

Every online source I have looked at says there's a lot of evidence disproving the other theories of the beginning of the universe or existence in totality. However, the Wikipedia article mentions only one, a book from 1996. Where are the rest of the sources? Galactiger (talk) 20:45, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

I've added a link to 'non-standard cosmology' in the 'See also' section. Praemonitus (talk) 01:03, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: English Composition 1102 085

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 4 March 2024 and 2 May 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jgleana (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Jgleana (talk) 03:45, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

The article's intro is mistaken twice

(1) A theory and one of its elements, are quite different things. The cosmos' expansion, the Big Bang momemt, tP etc. are just elements of the theory !!!!! (2) The first formulations of the Big Bang Theory were written already in 1922 by Alexander Friedmann. based upon his own equations. So currently the article is also wrong regarding the first main step of the theory.


Therefore I suggest the following intro :


According to contemporary science, The Big Bang is the first moment of the universe. Its very existence, characteristics and the physical and cosmological processes that followed, are the main elements of a theory named The Big Bang Theory. Based on his own Friedmann equations, Alexander Friedmann contributed in 1922 the origin of the theory ...... יוסי ברנע בן פנינה (talk) 01:21, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

This makes sense to me. Ymblanter (talk) 12:37, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
Both Alexander Friedmann and George Lemaître proposed an expanding metric for the universe based on solutions to Einstein's theory of General Relativity. In 1928, Lemaître suggested that the universe may have originated at a single point -- a "primeval atom". Note that Hoyle's 1948 steady-state model allowed for an expanding universe with no big bang. Hence, an expanding universe did not necessarily imply a big bang. I think that's why Lemaître gets credited. Praemonitus (talk) 13:38, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
I disagree on point (1). The "big bang" as an event does not even have a consistent definition within scientific discourse. It is better for the article's opening to describe the (well defined) theory instead of attempting to describe the (ill defined) event. Aseyhe (talk) 20:26, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Big_Bang/Archive_25&oldid=1255200167"