Talk:Big Bang

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

first time editor has a question about the Universe

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

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

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

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

Proof the scientest need change the name of this.

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

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

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

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

Science?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hi BirdKr, Excelent example but you may have a wrong user since I understand that Wikipedia is meant for a common man, epecially the high school kid. So I never try to confuse her neither with any unscientific stuff nor with my original research (which of course I have as any guy who works in science). I understand all those things, just some editors don't, and they try to fix 2+2=5 as 2+2=12, which might be the same thing, just in different notation. What I'm doing then is to explain to those editors that the right notation (understood by the common man and woman) is 2+2=5. I may tell him that I'm not pushing my POV since privately I think that 2+2=4 but we aren't to write private articles that would produce chaos and confuse common man. I said that "if the majority [of scientists] happen to be idiots or mystics, this is what Wikipedia is to publish" (your example with 2+2=5, so as you see we both agree on it). But some editors vote 9:1 on 2+2=3 while mainsteam science says 2+2=4. E.g. it happens with gravitation "a natural phenomenon by which all objects with mass attract each other" according to those editors, who voted 9:1 for Newtonian gravitation (and prevailed) over Einstein's which they didn't understand and of course the mainstream science is 10:0 for Einstein. That's why I think you might have the wrong guy. Because of this and since I'm using Wikipedia to popularize Einstein's theory which is rarely understood and then it might look like pushing my POV. And incidentally, Einstein's theory doesn't support the BB despite the attempts to patch in the support for the BB. Einstein's idea of metric tensor being non symmetric coincides with Jim's but Jim is even more crazy since his metric is also degenerate (although it approximates Minkowski) i.e. it has a property that the spacetime volume ($dt\times dx\times dy\times dz$) is zero everywhere. Jim (talk) 14:06, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Problems with the Big Bang

1- The Big Bang Theory

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

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

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

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

2- The Problems with the Big Bang

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

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

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

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

5. Everything cannot come from nothing

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

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

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

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

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

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

Scientific Critiscim

I think it would be a good addition to the article to add critiscisms of the Big Bang Theory based on scientific evidence, if it is in support of creationism or not, or just revealing flaws in this theory. It seems like a good idea. Timetobrawl (talk) 16:39, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Find some reliable, peer reviewed sources that have received note on the subject and we'll consider it. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:51, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

There are plenty. One that quickly comes to mind is:

Mitchel, W.C., 1997, Big-Bang Theory Under Fire. Phys. Essays, 10(2), 370-379.

Of course, the observations and evidences mentioned and discussed in the article are scientific, not religious. Other papers cited in this article are also peer-reviewed. That would be a start for what you want to consider, but there are newer papers too. (Epleite (talk) 17:14, 29 May 2008 (UTC))

Phys Essays is not peer reviewed. Try again. ScienceApologist (talk) 05:20, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

from www.physicsessays.com:

"Physics Essays, an international, peer-reviewed journal of impeccable quality, supported and advised by a renowned Editorial Board, has been established as the sole journal to act as the voice of the international physics community in a truly interdisciplinary fashion."

Tray again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Epleite (talk • contribs) 02:10, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Interesting that they say that. They aren't peer reviewed in the normal sense. Their editors are a little "out there", you see. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:50, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Big Breed Theory?

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

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

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

Horrendous Space Kablooie

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

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

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

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

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

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

Big Bang = Religion

The big bang is a theory, and nothing more. The only difference between the big bang theory and other religions is that this one is government funded... I personaly do not believe in the theory, but like other religions, I have no problem in other people believing. The only thing that angers me is that it is used in modern science books. There is no definate, or even moderately close evidence that proves that this is how the universe was truly formed, whereas when I think of science, I think of information based on facts.

I think you may have a misunderstanding of what "theory" means in the scientific context. A scientific theory is an explanation that has been throughly tested and is supported by the currently available scientific evidence. If you wish to read about the scientific evidence supporting the Big Bang model you will find a good deal of it on this or related pages. Please remember that this talk page is for discussing improving Wikipedia's page on the Big Bang model, not for debating the merits of the theory. Coffeeassured (talk) 02:00, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

So when did the bing bang happnd?

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

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

I researched this topic and found this.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lead question

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Every sentence using the "scientific consensus" should be banner

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

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

Is this sentence at all scientific?

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

I'm not even going to go into the problems with that, like the cosmic background radiation being far weaker than predicted, the naivety of thinking telescopes looking through a zillion stars and a huge mess of light can see the entire universe when we don't even know almost anything about the planets in our own solar system, blah blah blah... But that sentence is essentially telling people that the Big Bang is scientific fact, which it isn't.

99.234.182.107 (talk) 15:32, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

See the top of this page, with a red octagon with a hand in it; thus I'm glad you won't go into the problems with that. For Wikipedia the right question is, to what extent do leading scientists worldwide consider the Big Bang a fact? I'm not a scientist, but according to previous discussion, they pretty much do consider it a fact. Wikipedia is intended to reflect their opinions, not ours. Art LaPella (talk) 22:17, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Georges Lemaître

He originally is the one that put forward the theory although it was of a different name, I think he deserves some recognition. 137.149.138.56 (talk) 12:42, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

His name occurs 14 times in the article. The first time, which has been added since your comment, is in the article's third sentence. Is that recognition enough? Art LaPella (talk) 20:39, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I suggest you read this letter http://www.rense.com/general53/bbng.htm most Plasma Physicists do not adhere to the Big bang model. The key assumption of the Big Bang is the cosmological principle,the cosmological principle can only apply if the Macro universe does indeed to participate in the laws or principles of quantum Physics.

Although there had been much clamor about a unified field theory no one ever came up with it and in fact even Stephen Hawking's has given up on it. Several recent experiments have shown that there is no absolute wall of scaling and their quanta and its strange world of entanglement and superposition have a footprint in this physical reality. In the academic world holding a position that is controversial and disputes the current paradigm of the discipline can be career ending. Uniformity of opinion in science does not mean that something's right it just means it's current theory and that people's careers are tied into ,Thomas Kuhn in his classical The Structure of Scientific Revolution. Kuhn stated that new paradigms(he coined the term)and theories, require the reconstruction of prior assumptions and the reevaluation of prior facts. This produces a crisis and is met with great resistance by those who adhere to the old paradigm. Or as Max Planck stated "a new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it." Two astrophysicists at UC California Santa Cruz, Bruce Rosenblum, and Fred Kutner which is the bastion of the Big Bang astrophysics camp, recently wrote provocative book entitled The Quantum Enigma. They actually do not take a position on the issue but they just discussed in its possible ramifications, that physical reality as we know it is not exactly exist objectively. The notion that the university is a place where healthy debate takes place in one's field is about as accurate as saying the old Soviet Union was known for its respect for diversity of intellectual thought. You just cannot weigh to highly the immense peer pressure upon anyone in a major University taking on the Big Bang theory, unless he was a plasma physicist. This article unfortunately sinks to the level of simple dogma by not presenting a coherent case for alternatives, or links to websites or other articles on Wikipedia where they can be found. Profound implications of what we are seeing on the quantum level are scaring the hell out of the materialists, just as is stated in Thomas Koons classic, there is a full on assault on any thought even religious that is not materialists in origin. The problem with cosmology and quantum ,,is that consciousness and matter seem to be like heads and tails the same coin spinning as it were in superposition both heads and tails at the same time or neither. It is a question in my mind that old notions of matter and mind as such, one being derived from the other will be as passé as talking about the ethers and the elements of fire water wind and such. Even if you are materialist you most likely would be a Darwinist. A Darwinist or Neo Darwinists would tell you that mind or consciousnesses is api phenomenon of matter. Thought and language itself are the results of the bioelectric interaction of the brain, size and limitations of conceptual possibilities are determined by its stage of evolution. In other words homo erectus could not come up with the specific theory of relativity. Therefore unless the human brain has ceased to evolve,( sometimes that happens after you receive tenure) no theory of the universe can be considered final.Stevo46 (talk) 07:05, 27 June 2008 (UTC) steve musgrave Stevo46 (talk) 07:05, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

This is wildly off topic. Please remember that this is a talk page to improve this article not a forum. Coffeeassured (talk) 11:51, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Very unprofessional start to this article

The first sentence logically cannot be tenable. "..is best supported by all lines of scientific evidence and observation" is a closed-minded start to an article about a theory in which many of the details have not come close to being resolved. There are so many "lines of scientific evidence and observation" related to the formation of the universe that use of the words "all lines" is total inappropriate in this context.

The article contradicts itself by saying later that there are many "issues and problems" with the theory. That would imply that there are some "lines of scientific evidence" that don't support the theory.

Hopefully whoever wrote this will take the time to correct it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.33.49.251 (talk) 15:38, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

The level of certainty we should express in this article is a very controversial, old, recurring debate, and taking the time isn't the issue. The scientists here (not me) tend to argue that they are more sure of the Big Bang than the rest of us, and the article reflects their attitude. They would also say that the "issues and problems" are largely resolved. Art LaPella (talk) 20:38, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I am a scientist and I use the Big Bang model every day in my research. I also dislike the opening sentence, and in particular the "all lines" phrase. I also have a couple other minor quibbles about the opening paragraph. First the definition of the Big Bang is somewhat context relevant. How is inflation treated? There is not general model for it yet accepted by all. Are you including inflation or just the "classical Big Bang" model? I would prefer a paragraph more like

“ The Big Bang refers to any cosmological model of the universe whose basic premise includes the idea that the universe expanded from a primordial hot and dense initial condition at some finite time in the past. This premise is strongly supported by a large array of experimental data. Georges Lemaître proposed what became known as the Big Bang theory of the origin of the Universe in 1931[cite]. The framework for the model relies on Albert Einstein's General Relativity as formulated by Alexander Friedmann. After Edwin Hubble discovered in 1929 that the distances to far away galaxies were generally proportional to their redshifts, this observation was taken to indicate that all very distant galaxies and clusters have an apparent velocity directly away from our vantage point. The farther away, the higher the apparent velocity.[1] If the distance between galaxy clusters is increasing today, everything must have been closer together in the past. This idea has been considered in detail back in time to extreme densities and temperatures. Experiments, such as particle accelerators and satellites, have been built to probe such conditions and the leftover evidence, resulting in significant confirmation of the theory. To match experimental data probing the universe's earliest moments, the model is usually supplemented by a period of accelerated expansion, called inflation, that occurred early in the universe's history. In still earlier times and higher energies, current physical theories are not expected to be accurate leaving the earliest instants still a mystery that awaits future breakthroughs in physics. The Big Bang theory, even when including inflation, does not provide any explanation for the initial instant of the expansion. It only explains the general evolution of the universe after that instant. It does however warn that the conventional notions of time and space are no longer valid at the earliest moments in the universe's history and interpretation of those times will need progress in physics. ”

This is a only rough draft but addresses some of the other problems I had with the opening paragraph: 1) "and continues to expand to this day" rules out the old models of contracting big bang models (sure, data rules those out now but they are still big bang models even if they don't describe the universe), 2) "and continues to expand to this day" potentially gets the reader confused before they even start and should be omitted, 3) more credit should be given to the CMB people, and 4) at least something that warns that there are philosophical problems with the notion of time at the "instant" of creation. I'm also concerned that Lemaitre is getting too much credit (but it's hard to say without going back and reading a ton of papers in chronological order) and I'm also concerned that Robertson and Walker aren't getting any but maybe Friedmann deserves the opening paragraph fame.

The main point I am making is that "The Big Bang" is not really a single theory but refers to many theories built upon the same foundations (GR, expansion, sometimes inflation, and so on). It has constantly evolved as our knowledge has increased. Even the most up-to-date version, usually called the "Standard Big Bang" to indicate explicitly that inflation is incorporated, is still not unique because inflation itself is not uniquely handled. Jason Quinn (talk) 01:33, 4 July 2008 (UTC)