Talk:Big Bang/Archive 20

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Archive 20

Contents

maybe we should have a 2 sections added

  1. 1 flaws of the big bang theory and #2. good points of the big bang theory, it would make it so that people can form their own opinions.Jammerocker 13:38, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
ok my bad someone already did it but there is one thing that i saw that wasnt there...listen to this. "ok there is this theory...i forgot the name but I'm trying to find it now, anyway...the theory states that if anything implodes while spinning, every single piece will move at the exact same rate of speed and spin at the exact same speed, now if this little molecuel imploded then how can the matter from it colide and make earth?" i just thought maybe we could add that to the problem section.Jammerocker 13:45, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
The objection that the conservation of angular momentum denies the Big Bang is typical creationist pablum. You'd be best to stick to editing articles on subjects that you have researched more carefully. Also, don't rely on religious authorities to teach you science. --ScienceApologist 13:46, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
ok #1. thanks for the theory name. #2. creationist pablum, im just trying to point out something to maybe make this topic better thank you. and #3. I looked it up, i didnt get it from a "religious athority" as you put it.Jammerocker 14:01, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm going to go out on a limb and say that you looked it up in a creationist source. The "conservation of angular momentum" objection really derives from a complete misunderstanding of what the Big Bang is saying. There are still a lot of people, including most creationists, who think that the Big Bang describes an explosion of matter out into an empty universe that then forms all the features we observe. Only this is plainly not the Big Bang theory. We are under no obligation to include the objections made by people who are not reliable. If you can find a source that is reliable and makes this objection, show us here. --ScienceApologist 14:13, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

well you got me...lol...good debate (it kinda was a debate...sorta lol) NASA agrees with you...nice job lolJammerocker 14:49, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

ok i just found a website that supports what i was saying...http://liftoff.msfc.nasa.gov/academy/universe/b_bang.html

Jammerocker 08:23, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

That website says nothing about the conservation of angular momentum. --ScienceApologist 13:00, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
No but you had told me that i had the theory wrong...well i dont...unless 1. of 2. things happened...#1. The theory keeps changing which means that the theory does not have any true value, or #2. YOU have the theory wrong...in which case so does this whole article.Jammerocker 06:06, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
So which one is it?Jammerocker 12:01, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
The article is well-referenced and in accordance with the latest in modern cosmology. I'm not sure what you think the children's NASA website you found is supposed to show in terms of editorial revision of this article. --ScienceApologist 13:12, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
So in other words the Big Bang theory just keeps changing...and what do you mean childrens site...I didnt get from PBS...and I'm just saying that you said that i didnt even know what the big bang theory is and that if I had a reliable sorce to put it here...well I did. And now your saying that this article is "up to date" in modern cosmology...and i never said it wasnt.Jammerocker 13:27, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Well, not precisely children, indeed, but Liftoff is a teenager's (and older) site maintained by NASA. All theories in science keep changing in the sense that new observations may indicate refinements or modifications of parts of any scientific theory. That's one of the main features of science. See philosophy of science. --ScienceApologist 14:11, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
But my point is that we arnt just talking about a couple little changes with this theory, what I'm seeing is this whole theory being completely changed, now granted i dont know why but what I want to know is how we went from one big bang to big bang version 2.0.-Jammerocker 15:14, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
(rmv indent)The Liftoff page is wrong (or at least it is a misleading oversimplification). It says that the Big Bang was "a cosmic explosion that hurled matter in all directions". In fact, it was space itself that expanded rapidly, carrying matter with it. The matter that filled the early universe was incredibly hot and dense but it was not exploding - it had nowhere to explode into. Gandalf61 16:29, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
A "lie-to-children" - a concept simplified to the extent of being incorrect - but sufficiently close to reality so that it will help in education. [1] :-) --Kim D. Petersen 00:30, 21 June 2007 (UTC)


The Big Bang VS God

Here is one of the reasons I say that God is false. First of all, if God created space and time, then he could not have existed in space and time. And I know for a fact that only space and time exist in reality. Everything else is a figment, and that includes God. Here is another reason I say God is nonexistent. No force other than the Big Four (you know, strong, weak, elecromagnetism, and gravitation) can ever choose to put all those fermions and bosons in neat order; therefore, you can't say, "Hey you virtual pions! Bind the protons and neutrons in the atom together!" and have the protons and neutrons pull together. No one can. The force just happens. Therefore, I say it is perfectly logical for the Big Bang to just happen. No outside force can make matter and energy appear. It does not work that way.--67.10.200.101 17:55, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

God fails as a hypothesis. That's all that really needs to be said on the subject. It's unscientific, bronze age mysticism.

Here is a reason why God can exist: Science is the effort to understand, or to understand better, how nature works, with observable physical evidence as the basis of that understanding. The 'Big Bang' is a scientific theory that is un-provable. It is absolute science-fiction. It does not physically exist, nor can it be measured. The ‘Big Bang’ is an [arrogant] guess at how this world and universe could have come to exist without divine intervention. GregRowles 14:56, 7 Jan 2008 (UTC)

If you really think the Big Bang is "absolute science-fiction", then please review the article's second and third paragraphs, which summarize the evidence for the Big Bang. Comment on the evidence if you like, but please don't pretend there isn't any. Art LaPella (talk) 21:31, 7 January 2008 (UTC)


I've skimmed this article and I don't see any mention of the most fundamental problem with the big bang theory: where did the very first quantum of matter or energy come from? Why can't someone put this into layman's terms? Is it because perhaps there just isn't an answer? It does not take a genius to understand that something cannot come from nothing. You can disguise this problem with all the scientific terms you want, but at the end of the day, the physical universe (space and time) cannot be all there is because that first particle had to have come from somewhere. It doesn't make sense to say that it was just always there. The only way to explain it is to allow yourself to believe in a Creator who transcends space and time and is not bound by the universe, that's where the first writer above goes wrong in his understanding of God. Since I am apparently the only person who has the faith to believe in something that cannot be measured by scientific instruments, I fully expect to receive a deluge of sarcastic and condescending replies. That's ok, I'm used to people getting offended when confronted with the possibility that there is something out there greater than themselves. 208.22.45.148 19:27, 26 July 2007 (UTC)Scott W July 26, 2007.
You are correct that "there just isn't an answer" to "where did the very first quantum" (I think you mean zillions of quanta) "come from", although we don't take it for granted that "something cannot come from nothing" because it was unique (or at least unusual). Christians don't claim to know everything about God, and scientists (Christian or whatever) don't claim to know where the Big Bang came from. Art LaPella 01:56, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

i would support a religious interpretation page in order to move this sort of debate out of what should be essentially a purely scientific subject matter. If separate Christian, Hindu, Islamic or whatever pages are required then so be it. In my view once religious philosophy starts getting mixed up with what is essentially a scientific subject then the overall clarity of the article will be damaged and the discussion will move away from the actual science to more religious interpretations. Not a good idea imho.--Joflaitheamhain 21:17, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

The Big Bang Theory cannot be proven through the Scientific method. It is outside of naturalists belief system. Therefore, naturalists are inconsistant. Although this is in many Christian arguments, I will state it again. Think, can random atoms collide, explode, and then create a world with living microscopic cells? Open a puzzle box, and throw it on the ground. What do you see? Mixed up puzzle pieces. If you pick them up and throw them again, will you get the picture on the front of the box? Doing this and hoping your puzzle will connect is as illogical as the Big Bang. Sure, you can't see God. But can you prove He doesn't exist? And how logical is it to believe that macro-evolution exists? Darwin said that you will find thousands of links between animals. We haven't found any of them. For all we know, the cavemen could've been mutated from a bone disease. -Yancyfry 03:07, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Neither Yancyfry nor his opposite 67.10.200.101 above has suggested any specific change to the article. So I ask them to review the boxes at the top of this page, especially the one that starts with "IMPORTANT: This is not the place to discuss how you think the universe began..." Art LaPella 04:03, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

As the top of the talk page shows, debate on the Big Bang should be hosted at talk.origins and not here. Besides, the Big Bang isn't about the origin of the universe. SkepticBanner (talk) 06:28, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

A couple of questions

First, it says that the universe was infinitely dense, which is fine, but it also says 'infinite energy'. Is this a side effect of the infinite density, or a mistake? I certainly have the idea that the universe can't (or shouldn't, based on my understanding) have infinite energy, because of ideas like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_energy.

Secondly, this is just a clarification question: the article seems to state that the matter in the universe has always existed (as opposed to ex nihilo creation) -- did the entire universe occupy an area smaller than a Planck length? I understand that the universe was at a singularity -- if so, does this have similar consequences for other existing singularities like the Black Hole?

Thanks in advance. Piepants 15:45, 18 July 2007 (UTC)Piepants

Good question. We don't have a very clear idea of what was happening during the Planck epoch. The fact that naive extrapolation backwards in time leads to an infinitely dense singularity is, as you perceive, a good indication that we do not yet know the full picture. The resolution may lie in quantum gravity, string theory, or some other theory of everything. As for the origin of the matter in the universe, that depends on how you count it. Most of the protons and neutrons in the current universe came into existence during the hadron epoch - actually, they are the bits that were left over after most of the particles and anti-particles annihilated each other. Their constituent quarks came into existence even earlier, but as I think quarks are continually interacting through the strong force by exchanging gluons, it may be meaningless to try to assign a long-term identity to one particular quark anyway. Certainly before the quark epoch the energy density of the universe was so high that there was no meaningful distinction between matter and energy - elementary particles were being created and annihilated very, very rapidly. Gandalf61 16:21, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
I guess I have some reading to do to understanding everything you've mentioned. One more clarification: "matter" (energy) doesn't ever get destroyed, so the universe has 'always' existed, albeit in a causally meaningless way prior to being 'created'?
I'm basically asking if the philosophical question of creationism can be resolved using the Big Bang. Prior to my line of questioning, it was still asked 'well how did matter get created?' which required me to consider ex nihilo creation. Piepants 16:49, 19 July 2007 (UTC)Piepants
"We don't have a very clear idea of what was happening during the Planck epoch". We don't know if conservation of mass and energy applied at that moment because we can't recreate it with an experiment. So we don't know if that moment is better described as "ex nihilo" (with or without an intelligence or deity) or as a phase in an older universe. Art LaPella 23:01, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

First Paragraph

I have a degree in this subject and find the first paragraph very hard to understand. I think I understand the distinctions that are attempted between the usage of the term "Big Bang" but it is put so incredibly badly and the major use of the term is given last. The first usage is marginal at best and the second and third are closely interrelated. Also what's with the Giga-annum business as it really isn't that widely used as far as I can see (I have never actually seen it used) and where it is used it is often qualified which implies it is a little recognised term. I'm not changing it at the moment as I know this article is closely watched but it really shouldn't be a featured article with that poor a first paragraph. Contrast with these randomly chosen from a google search [2][3][4][5]. Is it just me? Sophia 22:36, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

No it isn't. I'm not a professional scientist, but I have expressed a similar philosophy at User:Art LaPella#"Encyclopedic" obscurity. Now that plasma cosmology wars are at a lull, it might be possible to get some attention to making the article more understandable. Art LaPella 23:29, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
No, it isn't just you. The entire first paragraph looks dubious to me. I've been trying to clean it up by tagging, but it's not much better yet. Jayjg (talk) 01:57, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
I would say it is extremely dubious and am mulling over alternatives. Sophia 06:41, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
I've done some simplification, what do you think? Jayjg (talk) 05:27, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
It's good - much better than what it replaced! I hadn't got around to doing the research to see if the major usage these days is the "event" followed by the cosmological model that is based on expansion from a singularity or the other way around. I'll still look into it but hopefully a real cosmologist will correct it if necessary. Sophia 10:18, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

or tag

I've tagged the first sentence of this article original research. It brings an example of usage of the term "big bang", and then tries to draw a novel conclusion based on that usage. This, of course, is original research. What we need are sources that explicitly state "The Big Bang is..." or "The term Big Bang is used to mean..." or something similar. If we simply rely on usages we find, then we end up including things like the Bristol sessions. Jayjg (talk) 01:55, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Jayjg - you demanded a source in which the term "Big Bang" is used to describe an observable feature of the universe; I provided one; you say that looking for and providing a source is OR ! Looks like a Catch-22 to me. I don't like wasting my time on such games, so I have reverted to your tagged version before I attempted to provide a source, and as of now this page is off my watchlist. Gandalf61 11:46, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
No, I asked for a source which stated that the "Big Bang" refers to the observable facts of the evolution of the universe, not an example of someone using it as an adjective describing observable facts of the universe. One you start bringing examples of usage, you are doing original research; instead, bring clear statements from reliable sources saying "The Big Bang is..." or "The Big Bang refers to..." It shouldn't be hard, I get 140,000 google hits for the phrases; I'm not inserting them myself because I'm hoping someone with more expertise will provide top-notch sourcing for this. See also the section above this one. Jayjg (talk) 15:41, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Religion additions reverted, July 28

I have just reverted additions that refer to Islam and Hinduism. If such input had a direct association to the Big Bang, there might be a place for it. There is already mention in the article now as it stands. I reverted a new Hindu related addition that seems to have no connection with the Big Bang at all, and a new Islamic addition that did nothing except assert that modern cosmology confirmed prophecy. Also, this is a secular encyclopedia, and so will not be worded in the same way as writings for a particular religion. In particular, the traditional asides "PBUH" or "sawas" used in Islamic writings will be removed. No disrespect is intended, just as no disrespect is intended to anyone else mentioned by their name only. Diff for reverts [6]. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 11:21, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

i think that all religious references should be removed, as no religion in the world ever predicted the Big Bang. Instead spurious claims at prophecy happened AFTER the Big Bang theory was confirmed by science. A page on the Islamic, or Christian or Flying Spagetti Monster interpretations of the Big Bang theory should be created which this page could link to. --Joflaitheamhain 21:12, 2 August 2007 (UTC)


      • The Koran states that the world is flat and that mountains hold it place, much like tent pegs. Bible states that 'god' made the world in 7 days. etc. etc. Can we please remove all references to ignorant religious guesswork from these articles?

I undid someone's Notice, "Go religion!!! oh yeah!!! big bang is bulL!!! go religioN!! woot!!! shalalalala in the morning oh yeah!!!" This user User_talk:204.81.150.184 has been warned before for vandalism.

That message was routine vandalism you can revert all you want, and of course a truly religious person wouldn't have written that. Art LaPella 00:20, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I find it odd that this article doesn't mention the Quran, it being our first ever reference to the big bang. 21.30: "Don't the unbelievers see that the heavens and the earth were joined together as one, before we pulled them apart?" And by the way, the Quran doesn't say the earth is flat, it was delivered 1,400 years ago when people thought the earth was flat. Jsha 19:07, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Please find discussion of religious interpretations in the article Philosophical and religious interpretations of the Big Bang theory. ScienceApologist 19:06, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Additional Suggestion for Origin Problem

I and others have noted that there is no mention in the article that no one (as far as I know) has provided any explanation as to how the original material of the universe (matter, anti-matter, energy, etc.) came into existence. Every theory starts with the assumption of the pre-existence of the material. Could a note be added stating that there is not yet any known method for the original material to appear out of nothing? (At least outside of the proposition that the matter always existed in some form.) Dogrun81 19:50, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

You might want to look at, and follow the links under "Speculative physics beyond the Big Bang" again.Dugodugo 22:27, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Lead sentence

In a recent edit, EMC125 added the phrase "and scientifcally accepted understanding" to the first sentence. The sentence current reads (with my emphasis added to the new phrase):

The Big Bang is a cosmological model and scientifcally accepted understanding of the universe, whose primary assertion is that the universe started from a tremendously dense and hot state, and has been expanding ever since.

EMC125 is correct that the Big Bang is the dominant model used in cosmology. In my view it is about as solidly established as any scientific theory can get; at least in the broad outline as described in this sentence. There are all kinds of competing ideas in cosmology, but the primary assertion listed here is the foundation for just about all of them... except that the word "start" is an issue, because in fact we don't have a good handle on the very "start". However, although I agree with the EMC125 that the Big Bang is the accepted understanding used in science, I think the addition is not a good one. It is grammatically awkward. It detracts from what should be a plain simple neutral statement of what this model actually IS. It is WP:POV, in the sense that it is a little bit too anxious to defend the primacy of the model in the face of a cottage industry of Big Bang skeptics most of whom have a very poor grasp of the observations and the data and the models involved.

I don't think the Big Bang needs to be that concerned. The primacy of the model comes through in the article just fine. I don't like the word "start", because there are in fact various ideas about conditions prior to the Big Bang, in various senses of the word "prior"; and science cannot at present resolve them. So I am proposing the following for consideration.

The Big Bang is a cosmological model of the universe, whose primary assertion is that the universe has expanded into its current state from a primordial condition of enormous density and temperature.

What do people think? —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 11:45, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I have been WP:BOLD and gone ahead with the change proposed. I am still interested in criticism or approval from other editors. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 23:39, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
It sounds fine to me. Mike Peel 08:06, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

A recent edit inserted an extra sentence, right at the start. The sentence read: In modern cosmology it is ragarded as both: the ultimate end of the universe and its very first beginning. I have removed it. The Big Bang is not the necessarily the ultimate end; indeed the preferred model now is for an unending accelerating expansion. That could change, of course; but it's certainly untrue to merely state that the BB is the ultimate end. It is also not the very first beginning. Conventional BB cosmology does not take us all the way back to the conditions where classical GR becomes singular, and there is plenty of open research into a whole variety of different ideas for how the "bang" forming the expanding region of spacetime we inhabit got started. I appreciate this addition was likely in good faith; but it was unsourced and inaccurate. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 15:02, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

removed supposedly

A recent edit added "supposedly" to the lead paragraph. I have removed it. This was probably an attempt to add neutrality, but the phrase is one of words to avoid in the manual of style. The context makes plain that this is according to the model; and the existence of a condition of extreme heat and density near t=0 in proper time co-ordinates (a technical term) is very solid indeed as a part of our knowledge of the history of the universe. There may be some dispute on details; but the "Big Bang" as a time of explosive expansion near t=0 is very solid. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 00:40, 21 August 2007 (UTC)