Talk:Big Bang

This is not the place to discuss how you think the universe began. This page is for discussing the article, which is about the Big Bang model, and about what has been presented in peer-reviewed scientific literature about it. See Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines.

• Talk:Big Bang/Archive1
• Talk:Big Bang/Archive2
• Talk:Big Bang/Archive3
• Talk:Big Bang/Archive4

"Confirmation" vs "consistent evidence"

The last sentence in the introduction reads:

• The CMB was discovered in the 1960s and served as a confirmation of the Big Bang theory...

Surely the discovery is evidence that is consistent with the theory, and is NOT a confirmation? Or perhaps "served as a confirmation" (which is an absolute) should be changed to "taken as a confirmation", which is not the same thing? --Iantresman 23:20, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, scientific theories can never be confirmed in the sense that you mean. How about "...1960s and validated the Big Bang theory..." –Joke 16:28, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

The sense that I read from the article is an absolute. "Served as confirmation..." and the suggested "validated..." both read as such. It might be conclusive, and the Big Bang might be as good as proven, but the CMB by itself does not "served as a confirmation". I'd be happy with "adds further support for", or "is consistent with"? --Iantresman 17:09, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

As a side note, I suggest "further validated", since it shows how it helped to support it yet is not an absolute (I hope), any comments? Ian¹³ 19:02, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm going to change it "further validated" since I think that's absolutely what it does. Iantresman is right in that "served as a confirmation" is probably too strong a phrase since it did effectively eliminate the alternate theory but also introduced a few unanswered questions when scrutinized by the WMAP. By no means major problems, I don't think the Big Bang is in the business of being 'confirmed'. We can discuss these findings further if there are objections.Duke nemmerle 12:10, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Rather tangentially related, but an entertaining read: Frank Wilczek, Enlightenment, Knowledge, Ignorance, Temptation, hep-ph/0512187. As a starting point of discussing the validity and usefullness of landscapology (a.k.k Anthropic principle reloaded); Wilczek gives three examples of the high precison agreeemnt between theory and measurement, one being the CMB fluctuation spectrum (the other two are hadron masses from lattice QCD and electroweak scattering theory). --Pjacobi 18:58, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Features, issues and problems

The second sentence in this paragraph says "Other issues, such as the cuspy halo problem and the dwarf galaxy problem of cold dark matter, are not considered to be fatal...".

If "cuspy halos", "dwarf galaxies", and "cold dark matter" are important enough to mention on the section's introduction, shouldn't here be a short sub-section on each issue. And if "cold dark matter" is the same as "dark matter", then shouldn't his sub-section be renamed? --Iantresman 18:33, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Cold dark matter is a kind of dark matter. Right now the Lambda-CDM model favors cold dark matter as the major component. However, the general arguments for dark matter do not specify whether it is cold or hot. Therefore it is best to leave it as the more general "dark matter".

The problems associated with cold dark matter are model-dependent. That is, they are derived from theoretical n-body simulations rather than from observations. It is a judgement call, but there is some way which you can lump the cuspy halo problem (which may actually be solved now) and the dwarf galaxy problem as features, issues, and problems associated with cold dark matter as opposed to the Big Bang -- one level of specificity removed.

--ScienceApologist 21:16, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Was the big bang really the very beginning ?

Is there any empirical evidence that the big bang was the very beginning of the universe before which there was nothing, as often claimed by big bang theory adherents? It seems neither Friedman nor Lemaitre believed it was, the latter reportedly believing there was previously a primeval atom for eternity. Who first introduced the idea into the big bang theory that it was the very origin or 'creation' of the universe, rather than merely the origin of its current expansion, thereby legitimating talk about the very beginning of the explosion as 'the first few seconds of the universe' ? Certainly Hoyle's 1950 BBC Radio broadcast presumed what he dubbed 'the big bang theory' claimed the bang was the beginning of the universe, whereas earlier on it seems to have been treated as just an expanding universe theory as opposed to also being a theory about the very beginning of the universe. --80.6.94.131 18:52, 26 January 2006 (UTC)A.Bellamy

It seems to me that such a thing could be considered to be beyond the scope of the theory or science in general. Since, if the big bang theory is accurate, before the big bang, the universe was a singularity; spacetime did not exist in the current sense before that. For all intents and purposes, there really wasn't a before in any very meaningful sense. More direct to the question in the heading, "don't know" and probably "can't know". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.153.117.118 (talk • contribs) on 20:01, 19 February 2006.

Dear 66.153.117.118

Thanks for this response to my first question. So do you claim Lemaitre just did not understand relativity physics or the Big Bang Theory (BBT)in positing the universe consisted of some kind of atom before it exploded in the big bang ? And do you also claim that eternal oscillatory universe models that posit an endless 'Big Bang - Big Crunch' series BEFORE the last big bang (See Section 7), and which therefore deny the Big Bang theory that the universe began with the big bang of 13.7 billion years ago, are ruled out as meaningless or unknowable or refuted by general relativity ?

If you are right that the origin of the universe is scientifically unknowable, and such as the Wikipedia article and Simon Singh's book 'Big Bang' are also both right that the contemporary BBT claims the big bang was the origin of the universe, then it follows that the theory is itself partly based on a non-empirical extra-scientific faith that the universe had a beginning or creation and that the big bang was it, contrary to Wikipedia's and Singh's claims that is an empirical scientific theory. In that case the Wikipedia account and many others need rewriting so as not to confuse the logically minded rational reader trying to learn about modern physics and cosmology and to make it clear that this component of the theory is an extra-scientific faith, contrary to the current Section 8 of the Wikipedia article that claims the theory is scientific, or else that this is not a component of the theory, but rather only an extra-scientific interpretation of it to be lumped together with the other religious interpretations of Section 8.

My first question raises the issue of what empirical evidence can possibly justify such locutions as 'the age of the universe is 13.7 billion years' just because this is thought to be when its current expansion began, and such as events within a few seconds after the big bang being referred to as 'in the first few seconds of the universe', such as publicly used by scientists such as the current Astronomer Royal Sir Martin Rees, whose proper business is presumably astronomical observation and determining what hypotheses are supported by observation.

But my question was prompted by what seems to be the radical ambivalence and logical confusion in the Wikipedia article and in other characterisations of the Big Bang Theory such as Singh's bestselling 2004 book 'Big Bang' cited in the Wikipedia references, and possibly even amongst cosmologists themselves, about whether it specifically claims the Big Bang was the origin of the universe or not, in addition to claiming the universe is currently expanding after an explosion some time ago. This is surely an important issue about which clarity is important both for popular science education and also for religious education.

So perhaps the more basic question that should be raised is 'Does the Big Bang Theory claim the big bang was the origin of the universe or not ?', with the auxiliary question that if it does, as Wikipedia tends to claim, what is its observational evidence for this, if any, or is it an untested hypothesis ?

The current Wikipedia article's apparent ambivalence and confusion over this core issue is surely illustrated by the following problems for the logically minded reader on its introductory first page:

• At the article's very outset, whereas the first sentence only claims "the universe EMERGED from an enormously dense and hot state about 13.7 billion years ago", the text of the accompanying diagram makes the far stronger claim that "the universe ORIGINATED in an extremely dense and hot state", and which it labels "singularity" without explaining what a 'singularity' is.

• The third sentence claims "Extrapolated into the past, [the Hubble] observations show that the universe has expanded from a PRIMEVAL state, in which all matter and energy in the universe was at an immense temperature and density." But what observations can possibly show this state was PRIMEVAL, meaning 'of the first age of the world', as opposed to having occurred, for example, at the equivalent of the last stroke of midnight in the history of the universe ?

• The fourth sentence claims "Physicists do not widely agree on what happened BEFORE THIS [primeval/original dense and hot state ?], although general relativity predicts a gravitational singularity." But this apparently conflicts with the Wikipedia claim that the Big Bang Theory (BBT) has been well established and widely accepted at least since 1965. This seems unlikely if its cardinal component is that BEFORE THIS the bang was the origin of the universe, as Wikipedia seems to claim, but on the other hand physicists do widely disagree on what happened before the dense and hot state, as Wikipedia also claims. Moreover, it is unclear whether the last clause of this Wikipedia sentence is also implicitly claiming as some do that general relativity theory itself implies a creation because the gravitational singularity it allegedly predicts is equated with such, which raises the question of why neither Einstein, nor even Friedmann and Lemaitre who both set the cosmological constant to zero, thought GR itself implied a creation.

• In the second paragraph on the one hand the term 'Big Bang' is said to refer to when the observed EXPANSION of the universe began, without claiming this was also the beginning of the universe. But on the other hand this same term is then said "in a more general sense to refer to the prevailing cosmological paradigm explaining THE ORIGIN AND expansion of the universe, as well as...". This again illustrates Wikipedia's ambivalence about whether the beginning of the current expansion of the universe was also the beginning of the universe, for nowhere does the following article provide any explanation whatever of the origin of the universe when its origin is equated with the Big Bang. And in its Section 8 on 'Philosophical and religious interpretations' the Wikipedia article even claims "science cannot possibly show a first cause" and that explanations of the cause of the Big Bang itself are "extra-scientific". This implies either that the prevailing Big Bang cosmological paradigm is extra-scientific if Wikipedia is right in claiming that it explains the origin of the universe or else that Wikipedia is wrong in claiming it does so. Nor to the best of my knowledge did Lemaitre even say why the previously eternal massive atom exploded, to explain the origin of the current expansion of a far more ancient atomic universe.

• There are many other such anomalies beyond the first page, but most notably Section 8 claims BBT does not conflict with Buddhism's denial of any creation "since there are ways to conceive an eternal universe within the paradigm." But apart from such questions as how a paradigm that claims the universe is only 13.7 billion years old is also compatible with claiming an eternal universe, Singh's Big Bang cited in the Wikipedia reference repeatedly characterises the Big Bang Theory as the twofold doctrine that the universe is not eternal and is expanding, which contradicts the Wikipedia claim that the paradigm can accomodate an eternal universe. Also the oscillating universe theory mentioned in Section 7 apparently posits an eternity of 'Big Bangs Big Crunches' before the last Big Bang, which thus contradicts the BBT claim that it was the origin of the universe.

Given this apparent confusion, I propose the various Wikipedia claims that the Big Bang Theory claims the Big Bang was the origin of the universe be edited out until they can be substantiated. I suggest it should also cite the observational evidence for this hypothesis, if any, and explain when and why it first became part of the BBT, noting that neither its originators Friedmann and Lemaitre nor such as Sir James Jeans in his 1930 bestseller 'The Mysterious Universe', which accepted the expanding universe theory, claimed the beginning of the expansion was also the origin of the universe. When did the Big Bang cosmology first become a cosmogony as well, and why ?

--80.6.94.131 19:10, 28 February 2006 (UTC)A.Bellamy

I think your prose above could have been made more succinct: "Does the Big Bang Theory claim the big bang was the origin of the universe or not?" is your question. It depends on what you mean by "origin". If you mean "from whence the present universe came" then yes, it does claim that the big bang is the origin. If you mean "ultimate source" then, no, it does not claim such a thing. This distinction is well-made in all relevant articles on the subject. --ScienceApologist 19:14, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

While we're on unspoken assumptions about the unknown, ScienceApologist's comment applies only to the known universe. Art LaPella 20:03, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Dear ScienceApologist

Beginning at the Beguine: the wrong kind of origin ?

Thanks for this most amusing Pythonesque Joadian response and the literary criticism to boot. So when Wikipedia and others claim the Big Bang was 'the origin of the universe', those people influenced by English language common parlance and such as the Popular Oxford Dictionary who rashly conclude 'origin' means it was the beginning or starting point of the universe obviously have the WRONG kind of origin in mind, namely what you would call the 'ultimate origin'. Good to hear that the BBT does not claim the universe originated in its origin ! But given that the Wikipedia article does not currently make this apparently vital new distinction between ultimate and non-ultimate origins, should people also conclude from your claim that all relevant articles do make this distinction that it is therefore not a relevant article on the subject, in addition to apparently being crucially confused on such a vital issue?

The BBT is ill-defined

But beyond such amusing Pythonesque apologetics for such apparently pseudo-scientific snake-oil claims that the Big Bang was the beginning of the universe and its moment of creation, presumably made to try and maximise research funding, or even claims that General Relativity itself implies a moment of creation (albeit possibly not the ultimate creation), sometimes eked out by logically confused techno-talk of 'singularities' and 'Minkowskian space-time', there is an underlying more serious issue. It is that the BBT is so ill-defined in the expository literature that it is exceedingly difficult or impossible to identify what it is and what its conflicting and competing cosmologies and their comparative merits are. For example, one best-seller cited by Wikipedia repeatedly distinguishes the BBT as the theory that the universe is expanding and is not eternal, and the alleged competing Steady State Theory (SST) as the theory that the universe is expanding but also eternal. But Wikipedia claims the Big Bang 'paradigm' can accommodate an uncreated eternal universe (See Section 8), such as posited by Buddhism.

The Wikipedia article itself would certainly benefit from some better logical differentiation of the BBT from the SST. In this connection it is notable that whereas Wikipedia claims the cosmological homogeneity principle is one of the three pillars of the BBT (Section 3), Singh's Big Bang claims it was predicted by the SST but that the BBT predicts it is false because of the uneven distribution of baby galaxies which would only appear at the furthest distances, and which is said to be confirmed by observation (See pp347, 444-5), contrary to the cosmological principle and SST. It is unfortunate that efforts to learn about science can apparently result in learning more about illogical confusion amongst science presenters.

So what are the basic distinguishing principles of the BBT, if any, that distinguish it from all other theories that maintain the universe is currently expanding, including the SST and the oscillating universe theory ? What is the BBT beyond the theory that the universe is currently expanding from a previous highly dense hot state ? And what, if anything, could possibly refute it ? These seem to be recondite questions for those who deny that the BBT claims that the bang was the beginning of the universe, for popular accounts of it can easily create the suspicion that the specificity of the BBT is based on nothing much more than a scientifically unsustainable hype that the bang was the beginning.

Conclusion

The progressive upshot for Wikipedia of the view that the BBT does not claim the bang was the beginning is that all the Wikipedia article claims and locutions that imply it was, such as that it was the origin of the universe, that the universe is 13.7 billion years old, references to soon after the bang as 'the EARLY universe' etc, must surely be removed so as not to prejudice the reader in favour of an extra-scientific hypothesis and empirically unfounded interpretations like that of the 24 April 1992 Independent front page headline 'How the Universe Began' did. A.Bellamy 2 March 2006

This is tiresome, and you've answered your own question. The big bang is the theory that the universe has emerged from a hot dense state sometime in the past, neither more nor less. It does not guess at what came before that. The oscillating universe, cosmic inflation etc postulate additional history for the universe, before the hot dense state. I will not bother to correct your mistaken understanding of general relativity and the cosmological principle, for the simple reason that this discussion has little to do with what to do with the Wikipedia article. –Joke 19:37, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I ought to explain the reason for my response. Frequently, people come on to this talk page and tell many of the regular editors of the big bang article that their theory is phisophically misguided, unfalsifiable, Ptolemaic, or already falsified. I can assure you that it is none of these things. The discussion on this page ought to be confined to specific ways to improve the article, because we have frequently had general conversations such as these before, they almost never improve the article, they consume much time, they are not the purpose of this talk page, and they quickly grow wearisome. So I encourage you to comment succinctly on specific things you think are wrong with the article and ways in which these problems could be resolved. –Joke 19:45, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't have the time nor the inclination to analyze such a rambling, incoherent diatribe. All I can gather is that you want any reference to points in time before now to only refer to the present and not that which proceeded it, nor do you want anyone to establish a linguistic coordinate system in time with an origin that lies anywhere but right now. This is an unreasonable request. Terms such as "early universe", "origin", etc. have colloquial and technical uses that are easily clarified by context. Expansion of the universe implies a singularity with extrapolation. A singularity is a natural place to place an origin for a coordinate system. Events that happened closer on time-like curves to the origin are earlier than events that happened farther. No denotation issues are evident at all. --ScienceApologist 20:01, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

A.Bellamy replies to Joke's mistaken criticisms

Dear Joke, Thanks for your above criticisms of 2 March. But after due consideration I do hope you will agree with me that they are misplaced and apparently also editorially uninformed. Most especially their main charge that my previous 3 contributions are purely general discussions not concerned with practically improving specific defects of the Wikipedia article is patently false and especially annoying given the detailed practical efforts I had previously made to improve the article, but which were rejected. To recap the background contexts this mistaken criticism crucially ignored:

In the absence of any Wikipedia defence of its claims that the BBT maintains that the big bang was the origin and beginning of the universe in response to my first query about them on 26 January, in my second contribution of 28 February I therefore specifically proposed that unless such claims could be substantiated, they be edited out [see its concluding paragraph above]. That same discussion also identified 4 such specific examples of this problem on the very first page of the article plus one other of its many more examples. But most practically of all, I then did 4 edits on the first page to improve it by removing its unsustainable origin claims. BUT AFTER INITIAL ACCEPTANCE, 3 OF THESE WERE SUBSEQUENTLY REJECTED AND THE ORIGINALS RESTORED. However, after ScienceApologist effectively admitted on 28 Feb that the BBT did not claim the big bang was the origin of the universe [see above], I then edited the article throughout to remove its various claims to the contrary, as I had already proposed. BUT AFTER INITIAL ACCEPTANCE, EXCEPT FOR JUST ONE, THESE DOZEN OR SO FURTHER IMPROVING EDITS WERE ALSO ALL SUBSEQUENTLY REJECTED AND REPLACED BY THE ORIGINALS. This was most wearisome and tiresome, and it seemed Wikipedia was committed to misrepresenting the BBT as a theory of the beginning of the universe and to blocking attempts to edit out all such misrepresentations. In my responding contribution of 2 March, again I specifically proposed the following improving editing: "all the Wikipedia article claims and locutions that imply it was [the beginning of the universe], such as that it was the origin of the universe, that the universe is 13.7 billion years old, references to soon after the bang as 'the EARLY universe' etc, must surely be removed so as not to prejudice the reader in favour of an extra-scientific hypothesis and empirically unfounded religious interpretation..." But whilst in response on 2 March Joke affirmed the position that the BBT does not claim the bang was the beginning, still no such consequently appropriate editing of the article has been carried out to date. But since I have been encouraged to make specific proposals, whilst I previously avoided cluttering up the discussion page with the tedia of detailed editing proposals instead of just implementing them, I now do so below. They propose 16 edits, 15 of which are required to eliminate all suggestions that the BBT claims the bang was the beginning of the universe. I commend their implementation.

But first of all I provide for the editors' possible edification some most pertinent quotations concerning misconceptions and misrepresentations of the BBT from the Wikipedia referenced web article 'Evidence for the Big Bang' by Feuerbacher & Scranton, posted on 25 January 2006, notably the day before I first queried the Wikipedia article's claim that the BBT claims the bang was the beginning.

From Feuerbacher & Scranton @ [1]

p2 "Contrary to the common perception, BBT is not a theory about the ORIGIN of the universe. Rather it describes the development of the universe over time.", and contrary to the current Wikipedia paragraph 2 claim that it explains "THE ORIGIN AND expansion of the universe".

p4 "BBT does not imply that the universe was ever point like.", contrary to the Wikipedia diagram with its point-like 'singularity' and p489 of Singh's misleadingly titled 'Big Bang: the origin of the universe':"As we run the clock backwards...it seems that all matter and energy was concentrated at one point,..."

p4 P.J.E. Peebles 2001 Scientific American: "That the universe is EXPANDING and cooling is the essence of the big bang theory. You will notice I have said nothing about an explosion - the big bang theory describes how our universe is evolving, not how it began.", contrary to Joke's 2 March claim: "The big bang is the theory that the universe has emerged from a hot dense state sometime in the past, NEITHER MORE nor less." and the Wikipedia article's first sentence that notably omits any mention of expansion.

Yes, you don't have to be Peebles to know that the big bang implies expansion. I should have said "expanded" instead of "emerged", but expansion is problematic, because the expansion is in the sense of a homogeneous expansion of space itself, rather than an explosion from a point, as you mention. This is discussed in the introductory paragraph. –Joke 20:05, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

p4 Kippenhahn: "There is also the widespread mistaken belief that, according to Hubble's law, the Big Bang began at one certain point in space. ...No, Hubble's law only says that matter was more dense everywhere at an earlier time, and that it thins out over time because everything flows away from each other."

p5 "The simplest description of the theory would be something like "In the distant past, the universe was very dense and hot; since then it has expanded, becoming less dense and cooler"." Here "expanded" means "space itself is becoming larger".

[My caps for emphasis.]

16 PROPOSED EDITS OF THE WIKIPEDIA BIG BANG ARTICLE AS OF 10 MARCH 2006

Except for the very first of them, the purpose of these 16 proposed edits of the current article is to prune out all its implications that the big bang was the beginning or origin of the universe according to the Big Bang Theory. Each proposed edit locates the claimed defective passage by its 'Contents' part numbers as listed on the first page of the article under 'Contents', then by the number of its paragraph within that part, and also the paragraph sentence number where appropriate, so <PART 1 Para4.S3> identifies the third Sentence of Paragraph 4 of Part 1. Then the passage itself is also quoted, with its problematic words emphasised by capital letters, the problem is specified, and an improving replacement is then proposed in single quotes.

As a clarifying convention for the use of Hoyle's arguably unfortunate and misleading moniker 'Big Bang', I suggest 'the big bang' and 'the bang' should simply mean 'the beginning of the current expansion of the universe'.

INTRODUCTION

• Para 1: The very first sentence "In physical cosmology, the Big Bang is the scientific theory that the universe EMERGED FROM an enormously dense and hot state about 13.7 billion years ago." crucially omits the most important aspect of the theory, namely that it claims the universe has radically EXPANDED since then, and instead creates the impression it just rarified and cooled and came out of a phase it passed through of being much hotter and denser, rather like the earth has emerged from ice ages it has entered or a train emerges from a tunnel it has entered. I suggest it be replaced by the following alternative introductory sentence:

'In physical cosmology, the Big Bang Theory says that the universe has been expanding and cooling down from an enormously dense and hot state it was in about 13.7 billion years ago.'

Did you bother to go on to the second sentence? –Joke 20:05, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

• The Diagram's Caption: The phrase "the universe ORIGINATED IN an extremely dense and hot state" should at least be replaced by '...universe EMERGED FROM an...' to at least bring it in line with 'emerged from' in the article's first sentence [This edit has now already been accepted.], but more ideally it should be replaced by

'the universe EXPANDED AND COOLED DOWN FROM an extremely dense and hot state...' to agree with the above proposed edit of the article's first sentence if it is accepted.

Emerged from is fine in this context. –Joke 20:05, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

[N.B. The next three sentences after the first sentence are surely unnacceptable as an encyclopedia's introduction to the theory for laypeople and school pupils, because they immediately blind them with wholly unexplained 20th century science and jargon, such as 'Hubble's law', 'the cosmological principle', 'Friedmann-Lemaitre model of general relativity' and 'gravitational singularity'. The same also applies to the next two paragraphs, and so I suggest a much more lay-friendly rewrite of this whole three paragraph introductory page should be considered. It should also get rid of the second paragraph's socio-linguistic claim of ambiguous usage of the term 'Big Bang' to refer to both an event and also to a theory, because this adds nothing but potential confusion and length to the exposition of the theory. And following Peebles, instead it should perhaps make it clear that, paradoxically, the BBT does not claim there was a big bang, as Hoyle's moniker unfortunately implies, nor even a silent explosion.]

Yes, I agree. They are a less than perfect product of balancing the need for technical accuracy with clarity. –Joke 20:05, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

• Para 1, Sentence 3: Delete PRIMEVAL from "...the universe has expanded from a PRIMEVAL state in which all matter and energy was at an immense temperature and density." because 'PRIMEVAL' means 'of the first age of the world' and so begs the question of whether it was such, rather than a very late or even infinitely late state of the world, for example. [NB My own editing this out has now already been accepted, apparently.]

Primeval, primordial and origin are completely standard usage in the big bang literature, misleading or not. –Joke 20:05, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

• Para 2: Remove "origin and" from

"the prevailing cosmological paradigm explaining the ORIGIN AND expansion of the universe,...", to be replaced by 'the prevailing cosmological paradigm explaining the expansion of the universe,...' because the BBT does not provide any explanation of the origin of the universe whatever, but only of its evolution from the start of its current expansion.

The expansion of the universe is explained by general relativity. The big bang explains the origin of the structures in the universe (inflationary perturbations undergoing gravitational growth), light elements (BBN), etc, etc. It does not provide a first cause, however. –Joke 20:05, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

• Para 2: Remove "primordial" from "...as well as the composition of PRIMORDIAL matter through nucleosynthesis as predicted..." because 'PRIMORDIAL' means 'existing at or from the beginning', and so it wrongly and confusingly dates the new lighter nuclear matter such as helium nuclei formed later in nucleosynthesis out of the fusion of prior free particles as itself having existed from the very beginning, rather than only having come into existence AFTER the beginning and been formed out of earlier matter that existed BEFORE nucleosynthesis. Nor is it even known whether these earlier pre-nuclear particles were primordial or not, if it is unknown when the beginning of the universe was, nor also even whether there was any matter whatever at the beginning.

So replace "...as well as the composition of PRIMORDIAL matter through nucleosynthesis as predicted..." by 'as well as the FORMATION OF THE NUCLEI OF LIGHTER ATOMIC matter by nucleosynthesis as predicted...', or more simply by 'as well as the FORMATION OF LIGHTER NUCLEAR matter by nucleosynthesis as predicted...'.

PART 1 History

• Para 4.S3: Remove "origin and" from "the best theory of the ORIGIN AND evolution of the cosmos" to become 'the best theory of the evolution of the cosmos', because it is not a theory of the origin of the cosmos.

PART 2 Overview

• Para 1: The claim "...the universe has a calculated age of 13.7 +- 0.2 billion years" unjustifiably presumes 'the bang' was the beginning of the universe in time, so suggest its replacement by the more neutral

'the big bang happened 13.7 +- 0.2 billion years ago' or by 'the universe has been expanding for 13.7 +- 0.2 billion years'.

No. It is almost always referred to as the age of the universe in the literature, and Wikipedia does not have cause to try to change the prevailing terminology. According to general relativity, this really is the age of the universe. Of course, GR isn't a complete theory and something had to come before, but it is still absolutely standard usage. –Joke 20:05, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

• Para 2: "The EARLY universe was filled..." begs the question of whether the bang was the beginning of the universe rather than a much later or even infinitely later stage, for example, so suggest instead the more neutral

'After the big bang at first the universe was filled...' or 'At first the expanding universe was filled...' or even by 'The early expanding universe was filled...'

Live with it. The Early Universe is the title of probably the most well known cosmology textbook (Kolb and Turner) and is standard usage despite your hobby horse. –Joke 20:05, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

• Para 6.S2: "Mysteries appear...closer to the BEGINNING,..." again begs the question of whether the bang was the beginning, so suggest instead the more neutral 'closer to the BANG' or

'closer to the beginning of the current expansion,...'.

• Para 6.S3: "There is no compelling physical model for the FIRST 10(-33) seconds OF THE UNIVERSE, before the phase transition..."

should be replaced by '...for the first 10(-33) seconds of THE EXPANSION OF the universe, before...'

I don't see the argument for changing this. Of course these could be interpreted as unclear out of context, but earlier in the article these points are clarified. –Joke 20:05, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

PART 4.2 CMB radiation

• Para 1.S2: "Because the EARLY universe was in thermal equilibrium..." unjustifably presumes this period was early rather than late, so replace it by the more neutral

'Because the early EXPANDING universe was...' or by 'After the bang the universe was in thermal equilibrium for a time...'.

• Para 4: "Because the EARLY universe was in thermal equilibrium, the radiation from this time..."

should be replaced by the more neutral 'The radiation from the period of thermal equilibrium after the bang had a blackbody...' or by 'Because the early EXPANDING universe was...'

PART 4.3 Abundance of PRIMORDIAL elements

• This part's title "Abundance of PRIMORDIAL elements" should be replaced by 'Abundance of LIGHT elements', because 'primordial' means 'existing at or from the beginning', which begs the question of whether the bang was the beginning, and also of which elements, if any, were primordial.

• Para 2.S4: The phrase "for example, the YOUNG universe (i.e. before star formation, as determined by..."

again begs the question of whether the universe was indeed young rather than very old at that time, and so should be replaced by 'for example, the PRE-STELLAR universe, (as determined by...)' or by 'for example, the universe before star formation, (as determined by...)', and even better, "as DETERMINED by" should be replaced by 'as IDENTIFIED by', to become 'for example, the PRE-STELLAR universe, (as IDENTIFIED by studying matter essentially free of nucleosynthesis products)...'

See all of the above points. –Joke 20:05, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

PART 7 Speculative physics beyond the Big Bang

• Para 3.S2: "Little is known about the EARLIEST UNIVERSE, when inflation is hypothesised to have occurred." again begs the question of whether this was the earliest universe rather than even an infinitely old universe, for example, and so should be replaced by the more neutral

"Little is known about the very beginning of the Big Bang, when inflation is hypothesised to have occurred in its first split seconds." or by 'Little is known about the VERY EARLIEST EXPANSION OF THE UNIVERSE, when inflation is hypothesised to have occurred."

See all of the above points. –Joke 20:05, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

PART 8 Philosophical and religious interpretations

• Para 3: Re the first item in the list: "A number of Christian churches, the Roman Catholic Church in particular, have accepted the Big Bang as a possible description of THE ORIGIN of the universe,..."

As the article currently stands, it seems anomalous to classify the claim that some Christian churches "have accepted the Big Bang as a possible description of THE ORIGIN of the universe" to be an extra-scientific religious interpretation, whilst Wikipedia itself also currently claims it is "the best theory of THE ORIGIN and evolution of the cosmos". Even if all such origination claims are removed from the article, perhaps the above phrase should become 'have INTERPRETED the Big Bang as a possible description of the ULTIMATE origin of the universe', to employ ScienceApologist's arguably pleonastic verbal distinction between an origin and an ultimate origin.

--80.6.94.131 17:09, 10 March 2006 (UTC)A.Bellamy

See all of the above points. –Joke 20:05, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Early universe is a term well-used in cosmology and should not be removed because it is non-controversial. This also applies to "primordial", "young", "primeval", and "emerge". --ScienceApologist 15:50, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't know why you are so preoccupied with these alterations. All these terms, origin, early, young, primeval, primordial are used with the tacit understanding that nothing is known about what the visible universe was condensed into the space of, approximately, a cubic meter, and that the expansion may have reversed or something completely unknown could have happened at that time. Nonetheless, their use is utterly conventional, and as long as this point is made clear, there can be no ambiguity. –Joke 20:05, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Page Query

Does anyone know if there is a page pondering the cause of the Big Bang, not the event itself?

You're looking for cosmogony. --ScienceApologist 22:38, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I think a good way to tell something is missing from an article, is when the same question keeps coming up on the talk page. If our answer is "see cosmogony", would it be OK to add those words with that link at the end of the first paragraph? Art LaPella 23:48, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Excellent suggestion. So added. --ScienceApologist 23:58, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Featured article

This article is featured and yet it contains not a single inline citation... It risks being taken to WP:FARC... Mikker ^... 17:37, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the article does have inline citations, they just are not in one of the footnote proposed formats. Since this is only a proposed policy and hasn't been adopted yet, I'm not sure that we need to change the style yet. --ScienceApologist 19:36, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Ummmm... correct me if I'm wrong but other than a single external ref, I see no inline citations, be it Harvard or Chicago. Mikker ^... 20:26, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

There are citations in the old (now much disdained) hyperlink style to outside materials in the text to Hoyle's coining of the term for example. I think that we could have plenty of cases for cited references, so your point is taken. I only think that we should be careful in claiming that an article has no inline citations. Back when the article went through FAC, inline citations weren't as a big of a deal as they are now. --ScienceApologist 20:32, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Right... didn't mean to 'rub anyone's nose in it' - my message was meant as a 'heads up' of sorts. I think this is a great article but numerous (great) articles have recently been FARCed because they fail WP:V. My suggestion is to insert refs (Harvard or Chicago; not externals) where possible. Just a thought... :) Mikker ^... 20:47, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the "heads up". I added references I knew off the top of my head. There are others that can be added, I'm sure, but do you think this will stave off a FARC? --ScienceApologist 21:26, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Don't mention it! Yes, what you've done is an improvement and I'm sure if other editors can help out most of the article can be refed in no time... (I do emphasise that external links are widely disliked - footnoting would help your case at FARC). As for staving off FARC: well, I'm not taking it there (feel bad enough already that I've said over at talk:gene that I'm taking THAT article to FARC). Mikker ^... 21:56, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I added a comment about this to Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. While I don't really disagree that some sections of the article could use better referencing, I wonder what the standard for referencing should be for "high level" articles like big bang, which draw on and synthesize a number of lower level articles, like cosmic microwave background. –Joke 00:02, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Empty nest

User:FredrickS added a link to empty nest in the "speculative physics beyond the Big Bang" section. The link leads to a page that appears to be both original research and self-promotion (it's based on the contents of a book written by User:FredrickS).

If this is to be listed as a variant of the Big Bang model, it's going to need citations for academic publications about it before it can be added. None have been provided here or at empty nest to date. --Christopher Thomas 01:50, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

I added some tags to the page and listed it on VfD. –Joke 01:52, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Silly Theory

How could the "Big Bang" happen without an action? It's not a well structured theory. 3/4/06 10:28 PM EST Dudtz

I think you're promoting the cosmological argument. We're trying to steer that kind of question to cosmogony. Art LaPella 03:43, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually there was an action... there has to have been an action... however its still unknown. --H0riz0n 05:35, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Hubble's law not believed by Hubble.

quoting from big bang entry "In 1929, Edwin Hubble provided an observational basis for Lemaître's theory. He discovered that, relative to the earth, the galaxies are receding in every direction at speeds directly proportional to their distance from the earth. This fact is now known as Hubble's law (see Edwin Hubble: Mariner of the Nebulae by Edward Christianson). Given the cosmological principle whereby the universe, when viewed on sufficiently large distance scales, has no preferred directions or preferred places, Hubble's law suggested that the universe was expanding. "

Not according to Sandage

Ref: JOURNAL DE LA SOCIÉTÉ ROYALE D ASTRONOMIE DU CANADA Vol. 83, No.6 December 1989 Whole No. 621

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/diamond_jubilee/1996/sandage_hubble.html

Hubble concluded that his observed log N(m) distribution showed a large departure from Euclidean geometry, provided that the effect of redshifts on the apparent magnitudes was calculated as if the redshifts were due to a real expansion. A different correction is required if no motion exists, the redshifts then being due to an unknown cause. Hubble believed that his count data gave a more reasonable result concerning spatial curvature if the redshift correction was made assuming no recession. To the very end of his writings he maintained this position, favouring (or at the very least keeping open) the model where no true expansion exists, and therefore that the redshift "represents a hitherto unrecognized principle of nature". This viewpoint is emphasized (a) in The Realm of the Nebulae, (b) in his reply (Hubble 1937a) to the criticisms of the 1936 papers by Eddington and by McVittie, and (c) in his 1937 Rhodes Lectures published as The Observational Approach to Cosmology (Hubble 1937b). It also persists in his last published scientific paper which is an account of his Darwin Lecture (Hubble 1953).

Tommysun 06:02, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

That doesn't make this article erroneous, only misleading. A qualifyer like "(but not to Hubble)", with a footnote, may be appropriate. Harald88 10:12, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

• • A.Bellamy 15 March: But contrary to Harald88's non-standard logic, if Tommysun is right and Hubble did not believe in recession or expansion, then surely on any normal logic the Wikipedia article's claim that Hubble "discovered that, relative to the earth, the galaxies are receding in every direction at speeds directly proportional to their distance from the earth" is FALSE, and thereby ERRONEOUS on this point on the normal meaning of 'erroneous' i.e. FALSE. Such a significant falsehood about scientific discovery surely cannot be dismissed in a footnote. The interesting issue then becomes that of who first put this theoretical construction on Hubble's data and when it became generally accepted. As a matter of related interest, in a kind of half-way house position in his 1930 bestseller 'The Mysterious Universe', Sir James Jeans accepted Hubble's data as indicating recession and an expanding universe, but also accepted Zwecky's 'tired-light' hypothesis, whereby he maintained the observed red-shift was due to a combination of tired-light and recession. This was in order to conclude a much slower expansion and thus older universe than otherwise if the red-shift was wholly due to recession, and thus to remove the contradiction between the accepted age of the Sun being greater than the supposed 'observationally supported' age of the universe (i.e. the estimated age of the expansion), and hence to avoid this refutation of the then expanding universe theory. In general of course the BBT (i.e. BB theory of the age of the expansion) was initially falsified by observationally supported facts of the age of various components of the universe being greater than that of the expansion. Was Hubble himself maybe chary of expansion for such reasons ?

I commented on the cited part. However, I had not noticed the miseading and POV intro. I correct that. Harald88 07:51, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Historical

Historical = Pertaining to History

The big bang theory pertains to the history of the evolution of the universe. That means it pertains to a history, thus making it a historical theory (but actually it is more than one historical theory since there are variations of the Big Bang theory, but the general concept is the same). Problems such as origin of the universe are solved by taking known current facts and deducing the past from them using a form of critical reasoning. The same is true with crime scene investigation. Make no mistake, the various timelines of the Big Bang itself proves that it is attributed to historical theories.

A question

Did the Big Bang actually make the space of the universe? I do not think that is possible :\. I was thinking there could always have been an unlimited amount of space, but the big bang just spread out the matter of the universe. After a while, all the matter from the universe could get pulled into one spot because of gravity and create anoher big bang. Is there a theory for that?

See Big Crunch and oscillatory universe. Art LaPella 02:23, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Expansion faster than the speed of light?

Howdy all. I just read this AP article: Evidence for Universe Expansion Found at SFGate.com. While it is very interesting, I'm having trouble understanding how the "marble-sized" Universe could suddenly expand to "a volume larger than all of observable space in less than a trillion-trillionth of a second." This would seem to be faster than the speed of light. How is that possible, even in the early Universe? Did the speed of light become fixed at a later time? Thanks. --NightMonkey 22:22, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

See cosmic inflation. --ScienceApologist 16:03, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

In easy-to-understand terms, nothing can travel faster than the speed of light in space. But the Big Bang was an expansion of space itself, not THROUGH space. JF Mephisto 09:14, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

center of the universe

Does the universe have a center point? If it evolved from a speck of some very small dimensions, that speck must have had a center, but if the universe of today has no center, where did it go?

And if the speck was finite, how cold some consider today that the universe is infinite?

Thank you.Legoff 07:02, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Please see the Reference Desk for factual questions not directly related to the article. -- Ec5618 07:15, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

News from NASA

Here is some fresh news from NASA about the Big Bang. I don't know if any of this information can be useful to this article, but maybe we can use the image, because "NASA material is not protected by copyright unless noted"? --Andrew c 17:56, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the universe center and infinity question (above): I have spent a frutless hour at REFERENCE without a hit. So, p;ease reconsider and let someone respond to me. Legoff 03:31, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Observed vs. inferred velocities

There isn't a clear distinction between inference and observation in the case of the Hubble flow. In fact, the recessional velocities are actually artifacts of the expansion of space, so to claim that they exist at all is problematic. However, their inference is equally problematic from this regard. What we should do rather is make it clear that this analysis was based on observation and falsifiable theory development. --ScienceApologist 08:45, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Your suggestion sounds good to me; my improvement was not meant to be final (but why did you revert my version if you hold that there isn't a clear distinction?!). This one is better: The observed redshifts of distant galaxies follow Hubble's law and are commonly interpreted as being the result of recessional velocities. The Big Bang theory is a logical consequence of this interpretation. Harald88 16:42, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I dislike this version too because it assumes an "interpretation" rather than an observation for recessional velocities as though there is that much of a distinction. This one is better:

The Big Bang is a consequence of an observed correlation between distances and recessional velocities summaried by Hubble's law that taken together with...

No, the whole point as explained in the discussion above is that velocity is an interpretation of redshift with which not all sources fully agree, and in particular Hubble himself disagreed with it. Hubble's law correlates not velocty but redshift with distance! Thus your phrasing is just as misleading as the existing text. Thus, what do other editors think of:

The Big Bang theory is based on an observed correlation between distances and redshift summaried by Hubble's law. The theory postulates that this redshift is fully due to recessional velocities, and taken together with...

Harald88 20:50, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

"summarized". "summaried" gets 13,400 Google hits but I didn't find it in any dictionaries. Art LaPella 20:23, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

What Hubble disagreed with is beside the point. Claiming that velocity is an interpretation of redshift belies the fundamental 1:1 correspondence that is verified by independent tests. Therefore the velocities are "observed".

To put it another way, there was a time when the caloric was not recognized as a form of energy. But to claim that when someone observes a thermodynamic process they are "interpreting" the presence of energy is just silly. They observe the presence of energy per definition. --ScienceApologist 21:59, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

What Hubble disagreed with should not be used in connetion with his name: that is definitely misleading, as already stated by another editor above. And you suggest here that what a large number of scientists write in peer reviewed papers, is "silly". That is very POV, and you have the right to your opinions, but not to push your opinion in Wikipedia. Please try again to come up with a phrasing that is NPOV; meanwhile I revert to the less POV version which we agree is open for improvement. Harald88 11:54, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Since the Hubble Law is verifiable as it is described in the text, to make the bold claim that such descriptions "should not be used" (is this a moral should, an editorial should, or an original research should?) is outlandish and in violation of Wikipedia's editorial policy regarding reporting of current, up-to-date verifiable facts. Your revert is unjustified and your advocacy of this as neutral is frankly, outlandish. If you cannot address the verifiable facts of the matter, there is no justification for your editorial opinion. --ScienceApologist 13:37, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Amazing: ScienceApologist does not know Hubble's Law?! (...) I'll rewrite that sentence with that law correctly stated. Harald88 19:49, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

The question of universal irregularity

The Big Bang is now accepted widely in scientific circles. We believe that all the known and unknown universe originated from a very small and very dense ball of extremely hot matter, which expanded in all directions at enormous speed. We cannot be sure of the original size of this fiery ball. I think some scientists refer to it as a "singularity", much the same as the centre of a black hole. If a singularity is a point of infinite density and is also infinitely small, then I see a problem with the obvious irregularity and random nature of the universe, even going back to very early times, when the first conglomerations began to take shape. The problem is this: If the universe expanded from a point source of zero dimensions, then in my view it would have had to expand in a perfectly uniform and regular way, and could not have given rise to the highly chaotic and random universe that we see all around us today. However, if the size of the singularity is anything other than infinitely small, then the seeds of all this randomness and irregularity that we now see were contained in that original small fiery ball.- goddlediddles 22 March 2006

Quote from Big Bang: "... the universe has expanded from a state in which all the matter and energy in the universe was at an immense temperature and density. Physicists do not widely agree on what happened before this,...". Quote from cosmic inflation:"As a direct consequence of this expansion, all of the observable universe originated in a small causally-connected region. Quantum fluctuations in this microscopic region, magnified to cosmic size, then became the seeds for the growth of structure in the universe...". Art LaPella 23:03, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

The only theory?

Is Big Bang the only theory or are there any others? Igor Skoglund.

The big bang is the only theory supported by an overwhelming majority of professional astronomers, cosmologists and physicists. See non-standard cosmology for all the rest. –Joke 18:12, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Interesting that you should ask. There has been a concerted effort by several Wikipedia editors to minimize in all Wikipedia articles any mention of alternative theories. Links are immediately removed from templates; edit summaries usually contain specious reasoning. — goethean ॐ 18:24, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, those cabals really put a bee in my bonnet. --ScienceApologist 18:38, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

So do non-denial denials. — goethean ॐ 19:02, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

And I wasn't referring to a cabal. When I mention certain more sensitive editors by name, I get accused of mounting personal attacks against them. — goethean ॐ 19:31, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Maybe you should consider avoiding these kinds of comments altogether, anonymous or personalized. --ScienceApologist 20:45, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. I'll consider the source. — goethean ॐ 21:05, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree with both Joke and Goethean. There should be no doubt about what is the most succesful and popular theory to date, but it's a bad sign if people start asking if there any other theories - that's an indication of poor presentation. Harald88 21:38, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Do you have the same criticism of electromagnetic radiation? There are other theories about what light is, after all.

Interesting article! But I can't find anyone asking such a question on that Talk page. Also, probably many editors will disagree with the oversimplistic opening phrase of that article, but the photon model is discussed lateron - thus I don't think there is much risk that such a question will be asked. Harald88 11:43, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

The point is that articles on Wikipedia about science topics tend to preempt such questions. Just because no one asked questions on the talk page doesn't mean that questions cannot be asked. While electromagnetic radiation may be superficially less controversial than the Big Bang, a consistent policy would require us to address all cases equally. I think as per your comments here we would have to modify that page and hundreds of others on science-related topics. THere is a reason we have an undue weight section of NPOV, it's to make it clear that summary articles on large topics do not need to treat alternatives with kid gloves (or even treat them at all).

Mistaken: that article suggests no specific model to be the only one. Apart of that, Wikipedia is work in progress, indeed that article can be improved too. Please don't put the NPOV policy on its head to make people believe that it condones dogmatism and POV pushing: it doesn't. And please stop wasting my time with such useless arguments. Harald88 17:02, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

This article doesn't suggest that the Big Bang is the only model either as it does mention the nonstandard cosmologies in a manner appropriate to their notability and their acceptance. --ScienceApologist 17:10, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Cosmos expanded faster than the speed of light?

I'd learned something about big bang before I came to this article. I remember I read somewhere that the farthest extreme in the universe that man can "see" is about 10 - 20 billion light years away. But according to the big bang theory, the history of cosmos began 13.7 billion years ago marked by an explosion. If so, the cosmos must have expanded at some stage with a speed greater than the speed of light so as to achieve its current dimension, but this obviously sounds absurd to the ear of anyone who knows the basic laws of physics. Where did my logic go wrong? --Lightdawn 06:50, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Space is not a physical object but just a metric and can expand faster than the speed of light. See cosmic inflation. --ScienceApologist 14:25, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

...about 13.7 billion years ago

Where is the reference for this number... I think its old. Even Hawking, Greene and others are not nailing down an exact time for the begining and from what I can remember from listening to hawkings books and Greens all notable scientists are putting the figure between 15+ billion years (with a max of 18). I think this information is a bit old and someone need to update it with the latest info. --H0riz0n 05:45, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, maybe its right... I see Hubble telescope info says 13-14. --H0riz0n 05:52, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Number is correct. The discovery of dark energy pushed the Age of the Universe down. --ScienceApologist 05:34, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Horizon problem -- negation

Actually Hawking has proven that information can travel faster then light in his black hole research. He found that black holes do in fact emit light/energy due to the quantum teleportation priciple -- Hawking Radiation. So why couldnt the universe expand from the quantum state in a similar manner, thus travelling faster than the speed of light and creating those regions in disputed in the Horizon problem? --H0riz0n 06:04, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Space can expand faster than light without violating relativity because a vacuum contains no information transfer mechanism (information must transmit through the vacuum). Hawking radiation isn't precisely information traveling faster than light (which violates special relativity) -- instead it is a consequence of quantum tunneling. However, quantum tunelling could be a cosmogony explanation and there is mechanistic applications of it found in cosmic inflation. --ScienceApologist 05:39, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Revert edits

Today, User:Enormousdude made the following two edits:

• removed

the Belgian Catholic priest as characterizing Lemaître

• added the following parenthesis to the heading section

(natural evolution of universe constantly takes place). 

IMHO, none of these edits improved the article. Especially the last one with its link to the evolution-article is irrelevant and should be reverted. --Sir48 16:48, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not taking sides, but such revert explanations should be encourages. :) Art LaPella 18:26, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Technical name

Shouldn't we call this by it's more proper name, the Standard Model of Cosmology? Or at least mention that it is called that? Just a suggestion SA@calcnet 03:16, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

As I understand it, the "standard model" of cosmology (aka classical cosmology) is the cosmology associated with matter domination (omega_matter > 0), where flatness was not assumed (omega_k >= 0), and dark energy was ignored (omega_lambda = 0). This was replaced in the mid-nineties with the Lambda-CDM model which is the current "model" where omega_lambda + omega_matter = 1 and omega_k = 0. This is different from the Big Bang which doesn't distinguish between particulars. --ScienceApologist 05:32, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Missing part

At the Overwiev there is an incomplete sentence:

There is no compelling physical model for the first 10-33 seconds of the universe, before the phase transition called for ??????? by grand unification theory.

-- Harp 12:15, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Huh? The phase transition is called for by GUT. Maybe the wording is awkward, but there isn't anything missing in the sentence. --ScienceApologist 12:27, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry my English is not to good :-( -- Harp 16:04, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Big bang and Planck density

Could somebody please explain how these fit together? How can a "singularity" be more dense than Planck density? Is it the assumption that natural constants do not exist in a singularity? What is the evidence for such an assumption? (Oddy 07:21, 1 May 2006 (UTC))

The big bang is predicted to be a singularity if one models it solely using the equations of General Relativity. As you've noticed, quantum mechanical effects are expected to become significant as density approaches the Planck density, or as temperature approaches the Planck temperature, or as spacetime curvature becomes more severe than a specific value relating to Planck's constant. The four forces are also expected to unify under these conditions, further complicating the model. For these reasons, the Big Bang model is only considered valid after a certain point in time (often assumed to be the Planck Epoch, but possibly later depending on how unification works). The evolution of the universe prior to that time is unknown (we don't yet have models of how physics works that would apply under the conditions expected to be present). --Christopher Thomas 21:23, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Christopher. Means to me that the universe started as an "object" of Planck density once the Planck epoch ended. Assuming that the mass (=energy) of the universe remained constant, since, what was the "diameter" of that object? Why did it expand considering the huge gravitational force applying? Oddy 09:21, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

The size of the universe at Planck density could have been just about anything. In the simplest GR-based model, it was (and is now) infinite, being zero only at time zero. In practice, observations can only place a lower bound on the size of the (observable and non-observable) universe, based on the fact that if it was less than a certain size before cosmic inflation, the ability of distant parts to interact with each other would have left a detectable imprint on the cosmic microwave background. To the best of my knowledge, the estimated size of the universe today based on CMB observations is "anywhere from 150 billion light-years to infinite", but a) I could easily be misremembering the exact figure quoted and b) the results of that particular paper were not verified by other papers, so it can't be considered a verified, accepted value. To backtrack to the size when it was at Planck density, if you assume that it has a finite, known size today, you still have to make assumptions about the nature of the force that caused inflation, so you'll get varying answers. Short answer is "we don't know, and won't until we have a much better understanding of the mechanism underlying cosmic inflation".

Be advised that the model of when the universe approached the Planck density is derived mostly using GR, which means it isn't trustworthy, as we expect gravity to behave in a modified manner at those energies, and don't presently have a good model of how it would behave.

As for why the universe expanded, the short answer is "because it was energetically and entropically favourable for it to do so". See cosmic inflation for details. The idea is that, in the early life of the universe, a field existed in it that exerted a very extreme repulsive force. The repulsive dark energy observed today may or may not be a vestige of this type of effect. We don't know what causes either of these. We have several models of possibilities, but they'll only be verified when we can either directly examine systems with energies in the scale where these fields become important (i.e. in a really powerful particle accelerator), or when observations of the universe rule out all but one variant of M-theory or quantum gravity or what-have-you, and produce additional support of whatever the remaining model is, pinning down the form of a theory of everything which would let us make predictions at higher energies than we can directly examine.

Right now, you appear to be applying lower-energy models to this situation, and will of course get contradictory results (the models aren't accurate when applied to the Planck regime). --Christopher Thomas 06:04, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Density before the Big Bang

Correct me if I am wrong, but if space(time) did not exist as such before the Big Bang, it would be correct to say that not only was it "enormously dense" but infinitly dense (and therefor infinitly hot?). --Friðrik Bragi Dýrfjörð 13:44, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

There is a difference between space existing and occupying a size of zero and space not existing at all. --ScienceApologist 14:11, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

As Thomas mentioned above and I agree: "The evolution of the universe prior to that time (the end of the Planck epoch) is unknown". Indeed, we never will know and it would be a waste of time to speculate about. The universe cannot have become "real", i.e. subject to the laws of physics, before the Planck epoch was over. Assuming it had a "density" exceeding the Planck density before and during the Planck epoch (natural constants not applying, therefore), it must have "expanded" to an object of Planck density when "entering real life". That leads to the question I raised earlier: Why did it, as an object of Planck density, expand further? Temperature can't be the driving force because a "real life object" cannot be more "hot" than Planck temperature.Oddy 21:04, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Read about cosmic inflation and particular the false vacuum associated with the inflaton field. There are a number of suggestions for why expansion happened in the first place but one is that the universe "rolled" down the potential and others include such suggestions as the universe "tunneled" into being with the expansion intact. --ScienceApologist 21:06, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I strongly disagree about us "never knowing" what happened at or before the Planck epoch. My statement was simply that we'd need a good model of quantum gravity, and more likely a Theory of Everything, before we could make predictions with any confidence in their accuracy. --Christopher Thomas 21:38, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

The discussion slipped away from the aspect of looking into the implications of Planck density on what happened around the big bang. Having followed the advice of Science Apologist and read along the hyperlinks I ultimately ended up again and again with terms like hypotheses, speculation, do-not-know etc. So, my intent still is to look to things that are pretty well known, here the Planck density defined by the natural constants. You inevitably get to Planck density if you track the universe back in time. Forward in time it is believed to expand, i.e. becomes less dense. Hence backward in time it was more dense. Going backward far enough it therefore must have been an object of Planck density. Going back further to an object with "supra-Planck density" means that the natural constants no longer apply. As we never will know which constants applied instead (if at all) we never will really know what was going on in the Planck epoch or before. Hence, "reality" started when the Planck epoch was over and there was an object of Planck density. The question then is: do the properties of an object of Planck density allow to happen what we believe has happened later? Please focus your response to this aspect. Oddy 03:13, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you meant that would be a good question for a scientific paper. Several Wikipedia policies agree that Wikipedia expects its editors to present mainstream opinions and sufficiently notable minority opinions, not to decide which opinion is true. Art LaPella 03:41, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

You make several statements here that I don't think are logically supported. Specifically:

• Your statement that the universe inevitably reaches even Planck density as one tracks backward in time isn't accepted as fact. The prediction is based on expressing the universe's expansion in terms of general relativity, and so will break down at the point at which GR ceases to be an accurate model. While our current best guess is that this occurs somewhere near Planck temperature and/or density, there are other possibilities (the most notable recent one was the idea that extra dimensions in string theory may not be curled down to the Planck radius, which would lower the energy at which gravity unifies with the other forces to something closer to the GUT scale). Experimental tests of this particular hypothesis have been performed, though they were only able to rule out a small range of the options. Whenever a GUT-energy collider is built, it'll similarly narrow down options, so this is an area of testable research, not philosophical handwaving.

• Your statement that backwards in time from the Planck density, the universe must have been more dense, is emphatically not accepted as fact. It only looks that way if you're using GR to model the universe, and you're explicitly in a region where GR ceases to be a useful model. We'll only be able to make useful predictions when we have a model that applies to systems that approach the Planck density. People have tried to look at this situation (and others in the same domain, like black hole collapse) using things like string theory, but enough assumptions have to be made (with our present incomplete understanding of physics in that regime) that varying answers are obtained. Wait until we have an experimentally-tested model of string theory or quantum gravity before expecting any kind of authoritative answer.

• Your statement that in a system with "supra-Planck density", natural constants don't apply, seems to have been pulled out of thin air. A more correct statement would be to say that the idea of a "system with density greater than Planck density" isn't compatible with our present, incomplete, models of physics. If we have a system where our models predict this kind of situation, it doesn't mean the universe breaks down - it means the tool we're using to _model_ the universe breaks down. Wait for better tools to be discovered and verified.

• Your conclusion that "reality started when the Planck epoch is over" is not supported by your evidence, for reasons explained above. The actual situation is that our models of reality are only accurate for times substantially after the Planck epoch.

• Your question "do the properties of a Planck object allow (X)" cannot be answered with present physics, for the reason repeatedly stated above. We do not (yet) have an accurate model of how a system with Planck density behaves.

Does this clarify what people have been saying to you? --Christopher Thomas 05:50, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Opposing views

Some people here are trying to censor opposing views. But it's standard Wikipedia practice for all notable opposing views to be mentioned. There doesn't need to be concensus for this. A nobel prize winner like Hannes Alfvén is obviously notable, so his views deserve to be mentioned. End of story. Helvetica 23:16, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. Plasma cosmology is not a notable alternative to Big Bang. Jefffire 23:44, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

If a Nobel Prize winner holds a viewpoint then that viewpoint is notable and worthy of mention. Period. Helvetica 00:00, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

If we really need to revive this dead horse issue one more time, please answer previous debate on this subject including Talk:Big Bang/Archive4#Art’s turn. Art LaPella 00:43, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Art - I browsed through your essay there, but didn't see much relevant to the discussion at hand. I'm not a plasma theorists and really haven't studied much theoretical physics at all, though in full disclosure Newtonian physics and the idea of a universe that's infinate both in size and time does make a lot more sense to me then the Big Bang - at least on an intuitive level.

I never proposed that there should be any significant discussion of plasma theory or any other theory in this article. Simply a summary of notable opposing views and links to more indepth discussion elsewhere. Just about every Wikipedia article has a section on criticisms, and I'm still bewildered that people here are trying to prevent opposing views from even being mentioned!

I actually originally came to this article in search of a discussion of opposing views regarding the big bang theory, but didn't find any at all mentioned in the article and had to do a Wikipedia/Google search to find the relevant articles. This was a severe disservice to me as a Wikipedia user.

In response to claims that dissenting views aren't notable, I'd like to make a couple points. First - in the entire history of the Nobel Prize in Physics (widely regarded as the most prestegious recogniton in the field), only 177 awards have been issued to this date. This number is comparable to or smaller than the number of seats in most national parliaments. If a major bill passes and even just member dissents and issues a strong dissenting opinion, then that opinion is a notable one. (And Mr. Hannes Alfvén might even be more notable than most the other physcis lauriettes.) Second - if plasma cosmology weren't notable then it would have been deleted and it wouldn't have a Wikipedia article. So since the article is notable enough to exist on Wikipedia it's notable enough to have a link to it from the relevant articles.

And finally, I think it's worthwhile to note that even much more empirically established scientific theories like evolution have a section on criticisims. The case for evolution can be made with evidence from fossils and DNA which exist here today on Earth, whereas the case for the big bang theory must be made based on an interpretation of light passing through a telescope lens - presumably very old light from very far away - so it's inherently more theoretical and ephemeral.

So I think I've pretty decicively made my case here, though I'm still bewildered that I should even have to argue for such elementary inclusion of notable opposing viewpoints. At any rate, I'm going to once again restore my stub of a summary of opposing views. I think links to notable opposition from philosophical and religious standpoints should also be included here... Helvetica 06:27, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

The problem is, as previously stated, notability. The last time around, it was argued that plasma cosmology has virtually no support among researchers in the field, and virtually no mindshare among laymen, so its inclusion here isn't justified. I agree that at least a link to the non-standard cosmology page would be useful, though. --Christopher Thomas 06:48, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure the number of physicists supporting the plasma hypothesis, but even if we assume that number is quite small, a link to it should still be included for the reasons I listed above: 1. Because it's notalbe enough to have a Wikipedia artile and 2. Because it's been endorsed by a very notable Nobel Prize winner in the field. To expand my parliamentary analogy from above, the Big Bang Theory could be compared to a major piece of legislation, say the Patriot Act. If a piece of legislation like that passed and there was even just one dissenting vote, and that congressman or senator published an indepth explanation as to why, then a discussion of that opposing statement would be included and/or linked to from the Wikipedia article about that act.

Also, whatever ends up being linked to (which I think deffinately needs to include creationism as well) needs to be under a heading like "opposition to" or "criticisms of" so that it will be easy for the readers to find. Something like "non-standard cosmology" isn't that clear in this context. Many people don't even know what the word "cosmology" means.

But at any rate, I've yet to see anyone give any good reason for deviating from standard Wikipedia practice and not including at least a brief summary of who disagrees with the Big Bang Theory and why. Helvetica 07:47, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

If you had to do a Google search to find opposition to the Big Bang, then you missed Big Bang#Features, issues and problems, with its link to non-standard cosmologies and with its 7 subheadings. Non-standard cosmologies, in turn, has a major section on plasma cosmology. Whether non-standard cosmology should be mentioned is a red herring - it already is. Another point from my essay relevant to this discussion is that the Boolean logic article doesn't mention intuitionism at all, even though the relative notability is in the same order of magnitude as measured by Google Scholar hits. As for Alfven and his Nobel Prize, parts of the Talk:Plasma cosmology archives seem to distinguish between Alfven's work and what is called plasma cosmology today. I'm not a professional scientist but I remember what has been hashed over and over. Art LaPella 15:35, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Art - I think your argument here is the real red herring, and I'll point out a number of flaws in your analogy. First, not only does the Boolean logic article not mention intuitionism, the intuitionism article does not mention Boolean logic. I'm certainly not an expert on intuitionism, but from browsing that article, nothing led me to believe that it was specifically in opposition to Boolean logic. Of course if a leading mathemetician (whatever's on a par with the Nobel Prize, since there's not yet a Nobel math prize) were to have stated that Boolean logic was flawed and advocated intuitionism in its place then each article should deffinately link to the other. Another problem with the analogy is that Boolean logic is not controversial and its implications generally fit with most people's common sense understandings of reality. The Big Bang theory on the other hand is naturally much more controversial because it has profound implications which are at odds with both many traditional relgious beliefs and with classical Newtonian physics and much humanist-philosophical cosmology (ie. infinate space and time). And finally, I'm not an expert on plasma theory, so I don't really know that much about the diversity of theories there or how some theorists may have strayed from Alfven's original ideas, but I don't really see how that's relevant the discussion here (that can all be sorted out in the plasma article). I still have yet to see anyone make any sort of case as to why this article shouldn't summarize and link to opposing viewpoints. Helvetica 22:23, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

First, intuitionism is well known to be an alternative to Boolean logic. For instance, the intuitionism article states "the law of the excluded middle, A or not A, is disallowed". Boolean logic#Properties refers to A or not A as one of two "complements".

"Of course, if a leading mathematician..." His name was Luitzen Egbertus Jan Brouwer. He didn't win a Nobel Prize, but since you "don't really know that much about the diversity of theories there or how some theorists may have strayed from Alfven's original ideas", we don't know if Alfven is relevant to modern plasma cosmology anyway.

"Boolean logic is not controversial", except among intuitionists. If there is no way to prove a statement right or wrong, then how is it meaningful to say it has to be one or the other? If a logical argument falls in the middle of the woods and nobody sees it, in what sense did it really fall?

Still don't like my intuitionism example? It should be easy to construct others. The Google Scholar hit ratio of "spacetime" to "wormhole" is 17 to 1, but the spacetime article doesn't mention the minority opinion wormhole. The ratio of "planet" to planet Vulcan is 333 and the ratio of "planet" to "planet X" is 560, but neither minority opinion is found in planet. 333 and 560 are an order of magnitude beyond plasma cosmology's 46, but considering how much non-standard cosmology was already in the Big Bang article even before Christopher Thomas' edit, you would think Vulcan and Planet X would at least rate a "see also".

Don't like any of my examples? Divide the article length by 46, and compare it to at least some of the Big Bang#Features, issues and problems section, and consider that the name of the article is Big Bang, not Plasma Cosmology. And once again, that section of the Big Bang article does indeed "summarize and link to opposing viewpoints."

I don't really care so much who wins, but what bothers me is that these arguments can go on so long without listening to the other side. For instance, instead of insisting "notable" and "not notable", you should either be arguing over whether a ratio of 46 is enough, improving the accuracy of that statistic, or at least arguing that it doesn't matter. I would like to see these arguments settled on some kind of rational basis. Art LaPella 23:56, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Point of order - My edit (diff) rewrote the section that User:Helvetica added. I did not insert the "opposition" section. --Christopher Thomas 05:17, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

He's right. Art LaPella 05:52, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Art's evaluation. I think that the current article as it stands adequately addresses the existence of alternatives to the Big bang. This is why reversion to the previous version was warranted. --ScienceApologist 04:10, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Dark Matter / Dark Energy Understanding

Me being an ammature, I dont understand some parts, I ould like definitons for beginners! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.111.205.42 (talk • contribs) on 16:06, 22 May 2006.

Just click through the dark matter and dark energy links for explanations. The short version is that "dark matter" is a substance that we've seen indirect evidence for that interacts gravitationally with normal matter but not electromagnetically (doesn't produce or absorb light, doesn't "contact" normal matter the way most observable matter does, might interact via nuclear forces). Galaxies appear to contain large amounts of dark matter, which we notice because it affects the orbits of stars in the galaxy. "Dark energy" is a substance or other type of effect that seems to have mass, but to exert a "negative pressure", causing the universe to expand more quickly. This appears to be spread more or less uniformly throughout space, at least on the scales we can easily observe, and may or may not be related to similar expansion phenomena (the cosmological constant in Einstein's equations or the unknown field that caused cosmic inflation early in the universe's history). For more information, read the links above. --Christopher Thomas 17:24, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Alternative Theories

I realize that the big bang is recognized as the leading theory on the origin of the universe. However, since there are so many unanswered questions, I think the whole theory could get turned on it's head at any time. I would like to see a link or two at the bottom that leads to articles about competing theories, or at least credible criticisms of the big bang theory.

Qwasty 22:07, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

It's already there, and much debated. See Big Bang#Features, issues and problems and #Opposing views. Art LaPella 22:57, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Question from - Talk:Hubble's law - issue should be addressed in this article

OK - I understand the concept of the doppler effect on light and how the redshifts are interpreted to mean that the galaxies are moving farther away from eachother...

But what I don't understand is how anyone can know that "the universe" or "space" itself is expanding as opposed to simply matter moving through space. In other words, what if 15 billion (or how ever many) years ago, instead of there being a "big bang" there was simply a bang within a larger existing universe. And ever since then, all this stuff has been expanding out into a really gigantic void which it still hasn't finished crossing after all these years?

What makes physicists so sure that "space" and time and everything began then? How do they know that what we observe as "the universe" isn't simply a small part of something much larger? For all we know, couldn't all the known universe simply exist as part of a subatomic particle in some larger "universe?"

I'll let the professionals answer why they say space itself expands. The answer to everything else is that nobody knows what might be beyond the known universe in extent, time, extra dimensions, parallel universes etc., as described at the end of the first paragraph of Big Bang. Art LaPella 02:23, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Space itself is expanding if you believe the observation that leads to the Hubble Law, you believe that general relativity applies on the largest scales, and that the universe is homogeneous and isotropic (cosmological principle). Once those three assumptions are made, the FRW metric is a natural result and space expands as described by the cosmic scale factor. All of this is currently discussed in the article under the Theoretical Underpinnings section. --ScienceApologist 02:27, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

An Open Letter to Closed Minds

Hello, does anyone know that?---->An Open Letter to Closed Minds Brian Wilson (talk • contribs) on 00:55, 29 May 2006.

It seems like the usual set of arguments put forth by proponents of non-standard cosmologies. However, as is usual for such essays, it fails to note either the evidence in favour of the Big Bang or the problems with its proposed alternatives. The Big Bang model wasn't accepted overnight; on the contrary, it was only accepted after a sufficiently large amount of evidence for its claims was produced to justify discarding the then-mainstream steady-state models. The "fudge factors" the article mentions only became accepted after many independent pieces of evidence pointed to them. Specifically:

• Expansion of the universe is required in order to produce a universe compatible with General Relativity that doesn't collapse in on itself (the expanding universe is, more or less, a time-reversal of the equations describing such a collapse). Proposing a steady-state model that doesn't collapse requires giving up General Relativity, which has so far survived every test we've been able to throw at it.
• Rapid expansion of the universe from a very hot, dense state is required to explain the abundances of elements observed in the cosmos. Specifically, deuterium wouldn't be seen, anywhere, if the only way of producing it was in stars, as it's burned up as quickly as it's produced. A universe that existed in a steady-state would also have to propose some means of producing hydrogen out of nowhere and getting rid of the fusion products of stars. All of these would require new physics at least as exotic as what the Big Bang model proposes.
• The cosmic microwave background is a very-nearly-perfect blackbody spectrum. Expansion of the universe from a hot, dense state perfectly explains both the existence of this background and its spectrum. Despite lots of effort on several fronts, none of the alternatives proposed have been able to duplicate this effect.
• Dark matter is required to explain the rotation mechanics of galaxies, and the relative amounts of the elements produced during the big bang nucleosynthesis. Gravitational lensing measurements around galaxy clusters have been able to directly demonstrate its existence.
• Cosmic inflation is the most reasonable explanation anyone's been able to think of for the fact that our best measurements of the universe's expansion and contents have it at very, very close to the "critical density" (below which it disperses, above which it collapses). As any deviation from the critical density tends to amplify itself quickly, some mechanism definitely _was_ present to fine-tune it. Inflation can be tested by looking very closely at the microwave background to look for the levels of fluctuation expected from a given amount of inflated growth, and the best observations available at present put disturbances in the background at just the right range.
• Dark energy wasn't something added to make the Big Bang model work - it was something we found out by looking into the sky and seeing its effects. In hindsight, the existence of a repulsive effect shouldn't have been that surprising, as both cosmic inflation and the cosmological constant in the equations of General Relativity point to similar phenomena. However, because it was so unexpected, it wasn't accepted until a very large pile of evidence built up for it.

Specific problems with the alternatives proposed by the article you link are:

• Steady-state models of the universe have to invoke lots of new physics to explain where hydrogen comes from, why we see deuterium, and where iron, carbon, and other "ash" from stars goes. The ones that best fit observations of the universe generally propose expansion from a hot, dense state for our local region of the universe. In other words, a big bang, but with some distant part of the universe continuing to exist in a primordial state. I don't see how either of these options are less arbitrary than the Big Bang model itself.
• Plasma cosmology is discussed at length elsewhere. The short version of the critique is that the filaments and holes it predicts haven't been observed, the structure of galaxies only looks like the _cross section_ of the discharge tube structures plasma cosmology was inspired by, their proposed mechanism for producing the microwave background doesn't produce the right spectrum, they have no proposed mechanism for producing deuterium, and they still have to invoke new physics to produce hydrogen and dispose of ash.

In short, far from being an arbitrary collection of fudge factors, the Big Bang model is the product of generations of astrophysicists trying to find models that explain the observed features of the cosmos. It's the best we've been able to come up with so far. The alternatives proposed to date explain less and require more handwaving. --Christopher Thomas 01:26, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

As detailed in this Jimbo quote among other Wikipedia policy statements, we are expected to report well-known opinions, not to decide which one is right. Mr. Wilson's link would be relevant if it showed a significant new unreported anti-Big Bang opinion, but these opinions and signers are almost identical with http://www.cosmologystatement.org, already referenced from non-standard cosmology which is linked from Big Bang. Art LaPella 03:35, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Of course I am aware of Wikipedia policies: I meant only to discover if any open minds are still reading this encyclopedia. I am realizing that Wikipedians use to fight against every non-standard and non-conservative research. In many cases this is useful, because it prevents pseudoscience and trolling, but I am afraid that science will not go forward for the next 100 years.Brian Wilson 11:30, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

The thing is, an open mind is always willing to discard their favourite model if a different one better supported by evidence comes along. Right now, the model that best fits observational data is the lambda-CDM model of the Big Bang. Having proponents of models like plasma cosmology accuse BBM researchers of being closed-minded is therefore deeply ironic, as they're the ones deciding to ignore observations rather than let go of their favourite model.

Research into alternate cosmological models does happen, as most scientists consider the Big Bang model to be incomplete at best. The thing is, the alternate models being investigated aren't ones that have already been disproven by observations, unlike most of the ones cited in the article you link. --Christopher Thomas 13:41, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, my policy quote was about original research, not neutrality. Neutrality is another issue, and the Big Bang article hopefully complies by mentioning non-standard cosmology without over-emphasizing it. Art LaPella 16:40, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I am sure that non-standard cosmology will never get anywhere, becouse researchers will never get enough funds, and because religions still control the governments (and, who knows, maybe it's better this way). Anyway I am not interested in a dispute, thank you for the nice talk, goodbye and good luck. Brian Wilson 16:59, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Coming up with a better cosmological model doesn't *require* funds. One of the wonderful things about tenure is that you can write papers on whatever you darn well please. _Testing_ a cosmological model takes telescope and satellite time, but 1) once you have a model with bona fide testable predictions, you can _get_ this time, and 2) chances are the data you want has already been collected for other purposes, so you get your first few arrays of tests for free.

The real problem with most (though not all) alternative cosmological models proposed to date is the problem I mentioned in my first response: they produce predictions that contradict observations, require new physics that's at least as exotic as anything in the Big Bang model, or both. There are a few contenders that don't suffer these problems, and these _are_ being actively researched. So, claims that some grand conspiracy is suppressing non-standard cosmologies end up looking pretty silly. --Christopher Thomas 17:50, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok I am silly. I'm not interested in this discussion for now, I'll be back in 15-20 years, in the meantime, good luck. Brian 18:12, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Open Questions in Relativistic Physics

Open Questions in Relativistic Physics Brian 01:39, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Another alternate proposal

Removed to User Talk:Morrigan42. Talk pages are for discussing the article and not for promoting your own ideas. --ScienceApologist 16:14, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

shouldn't this article include alternative theories?

not just the views of a few narrow minded POV pushers?--F.O.E. 13:25, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Please read WP:NPOV. The degree to which various views of the Big Bang are covered should be proportional to the number of experts who support these views. As the vast majority of scientists think some form of the Big Bang model describes the early history of the universe, and as the article is _about_ the Big Bang, the present mentions of alternatives are adequate. --Christopher Thomas 13:37, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

As C.Thomas correctly states, alternatives appear insofar as they represent proportionally their support in the scientific community. Because of progress in observation (see for example WMAP), technology, and the foundations of science (namely mathematics and physics) this proportion will change over time. It is therefore our NPOV obligation to correctly represent this proportion as well as the foundations of the theory itself. You are always welcome to start an article for an alternative theory on Wiki, provided it is cited correctly and not your own theory... which brings me to my final point: the Big Bang theory rests not upon a single person, era, or worldview. It is represented here at Wiki as it currently stands: upon generations of observation, physics, and mathematics, and not by "POV Pushers" you speak of. If you find an alternate theory that stands thus, feel free to contribute it. And if you'd like to discuss this or any other scientific theory, please let me know on my talk page - I have been a scientist for years and I would be glad to clear up any misunderstandings you may have. Astrobayes 09:18, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I think I agree that the alternatives discussed so far don't work. But that isn't a proof for big bang. I personally think the universe works along the following cycle:

In the "empty" areas of Margaret Geller's "bubbles" Neutrons are generated being converted to stable Protons. The protons themselves move to the galaxies at the bubble walls because of their kinetic energy and the applying gravitational gradient. At the edges of the galaxies they meet "colleagues" forming a gas getting absorbed by and/or building new stars. The stars undergo the known transitions (merging, exploding, ageing etc.) while moving to the galactic centers. At the centers they either miss it a bit, being thrown into the halo (entering the center again much later, usually when burnt out) or merge with other stars in the center. When critical mass is reached in the ultimately formed neutron stars the mass "disappears" forming m^2=hc/G (that no longer behaves like a mass and therefore makes us believe that in the space we see there is more or less a vacuum).

The newly formed m^2 moves back into the empty volume of the Geller-bubble along it's concentration gradient (resp. following the distribution of entropy). Somewhen it disproportionates there to become m (proton via neutron) again, moving to the bubble wall ....

As there is no reason to believe that this cycle doesn't happen somewhere I think we have this steady state mechanism in an infinitely large and old universe.

Remains the question who put the infinite amount of m^2=hc/G in place to run the cycle. I personally believe that any "absolute nothing" disproportionates into planck charges that combine into dipoles forming the planck mass and then combine further into quadrupoles building a real square: m^2=hc/G. This mostly remains as it is because it seems to be an energetically preferred state but also with very low probabilities either reverts to the energetically less preferred "absolute nothing" again (via planck mass and then isolated planck charges that quench each other) or combines (about 10^17 times) to the also energetically less preferred neutron with back-formation being prevented by conversion into the energetically stable proton. This back formation however comes to bear when the protons get converted into neutrons in a neutron star in the galactic center.--Oddy 02:26, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Once again, this would seem to violate several Wikipedia policies, for instance the template at the top of this discussion page: "This is the talk page for discussing changes to the Big Bang article...this is not a forum for discussing the topic generally." This theory (like all the others) doesn't belong on the main article page unless it has a significant number of influential advocates, not just us. Art LaPella 05:05, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Talk page header

Since similar opinions keep coming up, does anyone think it would help to repeat the sentence "Please note, this is not a forum for discussing the topic generally" in red so people will notice? Art LaPella 05:09, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd suggest modifying the note to make reference to WP:OR, and say something along the lines of "this is not the place to discuss how you think the universe began - it's to discuss the article, which is about the Big Bang model, and about evidence for it and criticism of it that have been presented in peer-reviewed scientific literature". Or maybe "This talk page is for discussing the article, which is about X. This talk page is not the place for Y or Z". --Christopher Thomas 19:56, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Doing so would greatly reduce trolling and flaming, and the endless, pointless arguments that ensue, which provide neither quality nor useable content to the article itself. After all, while it is the freedom of any thinking people to debate an idea, it is up to scientists - and more specifically, astrophysicists and cosmologists - to establish the state of the BB model at any given time. Since this article's existence is solely for the purpose of reporting that state and how it was concluded, discussions on origins would best be posted in Talk:Origins and not here. Astrobayes 20:21, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

OK, I changed it. I don't think changing "Talkheader" is an option without changing it for anyone, but how do you like it this way? Art LaPella 20:32, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Looks fine to me. --Christopher Thomas 21:22, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Condense space?

Could some one elaborate on the fact that the Big Bang say that it has one of it's principle: space condensing? Has anyone ever anywhere condensed space? 134.193.168.234 14:26, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand. If space condensing means cosmic inflation, I would think that's the opposite of condensing space. If it means condensing the article space alloted to non-standard cosmology, see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and #Opposing views. Art LaPella 17:47, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Big Bang theory decried by rate of acceration mismatch

Hubble telescope proved what it was intended for -- to verify the expansion of galaxies. The ground observation of Edwin Hubble that lead to the theory of expanding universes created the surmise that this motion must be explained by a central explosion of material outward -- thus galaxies seen as moving away from one another. But the space telescope that bears the astronomers name verified the wrong fact, inconveniently for those who have now sworn their allegiance, without sufficient scientific data to the origin of that motion aka the big bang theory, which remains a quaint theory of a bygone innocent age of simplistic physics, a day that no longer approximates anything we have learned about the worlds and energies that make up our existence.

The rate of exceleration of those moving galaxies does not match the explosion theory. Quite the opposite. But this is only one observational confrontation with the dearest theory of them all. One astrophsyicist observed, "The basic assumption of the medieval cosmos - a universe created from nothing, doomed to final destruction, governed by perfect mathematical laws that can be found by reason alone - are now the assumptions of modern cosmology."

Neutral point of view? If you are going to discuss Big Bang, then it should be shown why it isn't so.

http://www.spaceandmotion.com/Cosmology-Big-Bang-Theory.htm

67.101.52.69 08:37, 4 July 2006 (UTC)Ancient Wisdom