Talk:Big Bang/Archive 21

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 21
| Archive 22 →

Contents

Issue with primacy and supremacy of the theory in the lead

There is an issue here of the primacy and supremacy of the Big Bang as a description of the universe. The sentence as it previously read made two problematic assertions:

  1. The big bang is "a" theory. The indefinite article is technically correct (there are other theories) but it is misleading because the Big Bang is the only theory left in mainstream contention. We should be clear about this from the start in the wording.
  2. The big bang is described by its features but not by its popularity as a description. That is to say that the current lead doesn't do a good job of indicating that the big bang is science's best explanation of the universe as it currently exists. This needs to be explained fully and completely from the get-go.

These issues are important because there are a number of people who dispute mainstream science who do not believe the big bang should have supremacy and primacy. Unfortunately for them, the supremacy and primacy of this theory is not up for debate in this article.

Nondistinguished 23:48, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

The theory itself should be up for debate - if the Big Bang is so sensitive to parameters relating to dark energy (which was only proposed after the 1997 discovery of accelerating redshift in QSOs, thanks to the long lost cosmological constant) and dark matter which particle physicists have been searching for but never found since the 1980s, shouldn't at least these two very weak points (with no experimental evidence of their existence) be a question mark on the validity of what the Big Bang proposes? Does non-baryonic matter exist in the laboratory (as the cosmological principle says it should) or is it just an "epi-cycle"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.213.51.36 (talk) 05:01, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Lead section

The lead section is now way too long - it should ideally be ~ 3 paragraphs. I'd trim it down myself, but I haven't the time (and won't have for the next few weeks). Could someone give it a good prune, please? Mike Peel 21:08, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Agree. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 22:18, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
I have put up a new more concise lead section. Please let me know what you think. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 22:38, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Some dolt messed around with the first paragraph under the "History" header. Not to sound too much like a luddite, but I'm not sure how to change this. Just wanted to alert you to childish rubbish.

The text in question is as follows:

"The Bang Theory was a giant fart type wind that hit a bang that scienteists explained to judges to be the begining of man kind. Jemilio Hmesa discovered that the world could have been started by this fart from a bang that created us. The reason he came up with this discovery was he was trying to find a way to prove god's unexistince but as you can see its a bunch of crap." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.180.165.214 (talk) 02:33, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Observational evidence

Under Observational evidence the article claims that red shift proves the big bang, it does not, all it proves is that the universe is expanding, and that could be the of god, for example. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.46.20.206 (talk • contribs)

This could be the what of god exactly? You seem to have missed out the most important word there. More generally, this being an encyclopedia, we would need a reliable source for this information, not least to confirm its notability. Cheers, --Plumbago 07:55, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
I think 82.46.20.206 means this sentence: "The earliest and most direct kinds of observational evidence (sometimes called the three pillars of the Big Bang theory) are the Hubble-type expansion seen in the redshifts of galaxies..." Please note the difference between the words "evidence" and "proves". Art LaPella 20:11, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Inflation and the CMB

I have just applied a fairly significant edit to a new paragraph added on the CMB and inflation. There is indeed an important role for inflation in explaining the exceptional smoothness of the CMB, but the previous description had some subtle technical issues. It's not actually correct to speak of inflation as "expanding faster that light". The rate of expansion is not a velocity in the normal sense of the word. Even with a conventional linear expansion, there are galaxies that are receding faster than the speed of light, and which are still visible. The distinguishing feature of inflationary expansion is that photons from a galaxy that is receding from an observer faster than the speed of light can never actually "overtake" the expansion and reach that observer. But with other expansion rates, photons can actually pass from a galaxy to an observer, even when the galaxy is receding faster than the speed of light from that observer.

The edit I applied can be reviewed here.[1] —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 00:40, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Capitalization

Three different dictionaries (Webster, Random House, and American Heritage) say it's "big bang" and not "Big Bang." Is there an authority that states otherwise? ←BenB4 16:41, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

The five scientific and technical dictionaries listed at the bottom of [2] capitalize "Big Bang". The general dictionaries listed there don't, with a couple exceptions including wikt:Big Bang. (Ignore the unrelated references to Big Bang (financial markets).) Google [3] shows Big Bang is capitalized more often than not, but not much more often. My policy has been to try to keep the capitalization or non-capitalization of the phrase consistent within each Wikipedia article, but after looking around I see it hasn't stayed that way. Art LaPella 02:55, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
How do you use Google to compare capitalizations? ←BenB4 20:43, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Not automatically. Click the link I provided above after the word "Google", which I produced by Googling the phrase "Big Bang" ("big bang" would have produced the same results). The page shows 7 hits whose sample text has the capitalized phrase "Big Bang" bolded, one hit with the uncapitalized "big bang" bolded, one showing it both ways, and one that doesn't show the phrase in the sample text at all. If you then click "Next" several times at the bottom of the screen for more hits, you will find a greater proportion of uncapitalized "big bang"'s than on the first Google screen, but capitalized "Big Bang"'s continue to predominate. Note I'm using the sample text, not the blue title text where everything is likely to be capitalized. I also disregard titles embedded in the text for the same reason. I also disregard Google hits related to Big Bang (financial markets). Art LaPella 22:11, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Tone

The tone of this article is much too opinonated. ex.)The first line of this article states, "The Big Bang is". While the first line of the article on creationism states, "Creationism is the belief". Although it explains that the Big Bang theory is just that, a theory, it lacks a neutral stance on the topic. 71.58.51.134 23:23, 15 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.58.51.134 (talk) 15:28, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

You might have noted that Big Bang#Philosophical and religious interpretations links to Philosophical and religious interpretations of the Big Bang theory which briefly mentions creationism, so the issue is whether that is enough recognition of creationism without violating WP:Undue weight. You might also have noted that this issue comes up regularly throughout the talk page archives listed at the top of this page and related pages. The existing article is the result of much, much debate on this repetitive issue, and it would be very difficult to say anything new about it. Art LaPella 03:20, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Probable diameters of the Universe

I think that in addition to the measurements in fractions of a second, seconds, minutes and other time units, and the measurements in energy levels, also some information should be offered on possible diameters of the universe at a given moment. For instance, when it says:

“A few minutes into the expansion, when the temperature was about a billion (one thousand million; 109; SI prefix giga) Kelvin and the density was about that of air” [...] This is a very interesting stage, and some idea of the diameter of the universe at that point would be useful. The same at previous and latter points, particularly in the first few minutes and later on. That would also give some idea of the speed of expansion at different points of the universe's evolution.

Daniel_C 10:10, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

The diameter is only meaningfully set by the speed of light times the age of the universe. That's the definition of the relevant cosmological horizon and there is an entire section in the article about this. ScienceApologist 14:12, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
I think a clarification is merited. Regarding probable diameters, these estimates must specifically relate to the observable universe. There are both spatial and temporal limits to what we are able to observe. Thus, there is no (present) manner to estimate the size or age of the universe ... in fact there is no compelling evidence suggesting that the universe has an end or an origin. Bpabbott 18:29, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Not Objective

One of the crucial elements of the Wikipedia sites and its predecessors is an objective perspective. This article lacks that. It should also be included that the Big Bang at present is only a theory no matter how much evidence there is to support it. It is technically a theory still as it cannot be observed. Only the repercussions can be observed. Therefore it will remain a theory. I apologize if this in itself is biased but hey everyone is biased towards something.Apocalyptica is taken —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 18:04, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

The first sentence of the article says that the Big Bang is a model, which is another word for theory. I think that addresses your objections.--VAcharon 09:23, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

The wonderful aspect is that we do indeed have direct observations of the big bang, as much as sunlight is the evidence of nuclear reactions in our star, per the following section. Publicola 17:35, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

"In the beginning, there was darkness, and then... BANG."

The above phrase comes at the beginning of every episode of the current History Channel documentary The Universe (TV series). My understanding is that this is a perfect example of the misconception that the Big Bang "exploded" out into empty space - because really there was never any period or place of "darkness" at the beginning of the universe, no matter what measurements of space and time nor what model of particle physics you prefer. Unfortunately this show is the best current high-profile scientific television production addressing the Big Bang, and seems sure to cement this misconception in the popular consciousness for years to come. 70.15.116.59 19:21, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I would like to know, and I hope someone more scientifically-minded can answer in a way I can understand: What is the evidence that there was no space or time prior to the big bang, and why is that evidence stronger than what I would think is the default Occam's Razor assumption that there was either prior? Publicola 07:32, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Spacetime as we know it behaves in certain ways (time marching forward, three dimensions of space in all directions, etc.) only as long as the universe is not squished to an unimaginable density. However, in the early universe, with all matter and energy at a very high density, the detailed equations that determine how spacetime behaves breaks down. Therefore, it is a very pragmatic statement to say that space and time did not exist as we know it before a certain time in the past. However, that's not to say that spacetime didn't exist, only that it was in a very different form. There are still theorists trying to figure out exactly what kind of form spacetime would have in those first few moments. ScienceApologist 15:13, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Thank you, but I have to admit I'm still baffled. Let me try to take this step by step: Ignoring time for a moment, what is the evidence that space itself was compressed in the early universe, as opposed to space as we know it today containing all the matter compressed into a small part of space? As for time, there are theories like "big crunch" and oscillatory universe -- are those ruled out? Is there evidence saying more than that it's just not meaningful to talk about what preceded the big bang, or is there evidence that there was no prior moment of time? (By the way, I have read the article carefully, but I cant find the connection between this concept of expanding spacetime in the "overview" with the information presented in "Observational evidence." Redshifts, for example: why are they not just the Doppler effect of matter flying apart as the debris from the explosion of the big bang?) Publicola 15:25, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Please see metric expansion of space for more on space being compressed. You can also read about big crunch and oscillatory universe at their respective pages. The short of it is that they aren't completely ruled out, but we currently look to be living in an open universe that will reach heat death or maybe a Big Rip. As for "prior moments in time", since time is intricately dependent on space in spacetime, our models indicate that there is a t=0. The only problem is that our current models of physics also don't tell us what the universe was like at and near this point (see quantum gravity). So "before the Big Bang" is either shorthand for describing models that can explain the Big Bang or it is a misnomer since t=0 is the (fiducial) starting point and there is no time before it. Finally, the expansion of space, redshift, and to some extent the Milne universe articles answer your last question. ScienceApologist 15:41, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Thank you! In fact I did just come across Metric_expansion_of_space#Observational_evidence as I was thinking about this question. Now I wonder why I didn't come across it reading the article. Publicola 15:44, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

On reflection I find the "Hubble's law expansion" section of this article to be critically lacking. It explains the observational evidence of the redshift, but it does not connect that to metric expansion of space. I just inserted a see-also to metric expansion of space#Observational evidence I think is clearly superior to the pre-existing distance measures (cosmology) see-also which only talks about the different means of determining the distance of faraway objects, and says nothing about the observational evidence of expanding spacetime. Their are at least two points from metric expansion of space#Observational evidence which I believe should be added to the "Hubble's law expansion" section, paraphrasing:

That space is undergoing metric expansion is supported by direct observation of the Cosmological Principle and the Copernican Principle, which together have no other explanation. Astronomical redshifts are extremely isotropic and homogenous, supporting the Cosmological Principle that the universe looks the same way in all directions. If the redshifts were the result of an explosion from a distant center instead of the expansion of space, then they would be observed to be smaller in the direction of the center and greater facing from it, but they are not. Measurements of the effects of the cosmic microwave background radiation in the dynamics of distant astrophysical systems have proved the Copernican Principle on a cosmological scale in 2000.[1] The radiation that pervades the universe is demonstrably warmer at earlier times. Uniform cooling of the cosmic microwave background over billions of years is explainable only if the universe is experiencing a metric expansion.

This is important for explaining why the redshifts are not the result of explosion, in which case they would not have those properties unless we happened to be in the center of the explosion which is unlikely. I think this is obviously a common fallacy. I think I will be bold about this. Publicola 16:19, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Well I added a considerably improved revision of that paragraph to the section which I renamed from "Hubble's law expansion" to "Hubble's law and the expansion of space", because the distinction from expansion of matter is critically important. Someone please proofread the last two paragraphs at the end of that section. The reason that I was troubled was that there was no suggestion that the Copernican principle was a cosmological fact, which is the point of the last paragraph. The paragraph before that states that Hubble's observations were uniform and thus agreed with the Cosmological principle -- that was just barely implicit if at all in the earlier version today. Publicola 17:07, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
I hope that those who understand this better than I do, will especially proofread this sentence: "If the redshifts were the result of an explosion from a center distant from us, they would not be so uniform." I thought that uniform redshifts in all directions proved only that the universe is uniformly expanding/exploding, which wouldn't indicate a center as demonstrated at [4]. Something more would be required to determine whether the expansion was originally caused by an expansion or an explosion. Art LaPella 21:36, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
What I think is intended here is for uniform=isotropic, but I'm not sure. ScienceApologist 21:59, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Yes; I changed it to "similar in all directions."
After having delved in, I am feeling the dilemma about vocabulary level usage. (e.g., use introductory simplicity or the language professionals choose?) Publicola 22:08, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Art, you are exactly right: the Cosmological principle (supported by isotropic redshifts along with much other evidence) is supplemented by the newly-proven Copernican principle (shown from the 2000 research cited in the final paragraph of that section.) Publicola 23:13, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
This is a digression, but I think that there could be many ways to interpret the Big Bang. I find the idea of logarithmic time intuitively appealing - if you use a unit of time that is proportional to the age of the universe, and a distance unit related to it by a constant speed of light, then the overall size of the universe really didn't change very much - maybe 10,000 fold, if I remember correctly. Similarly the redshift would not have been so much and the temperature could be seen as changing only slightly, I think. Or you could use a unit of time defined so that there is no redshift. The problem with such views of the universe of course is that all constructs such as electrons, protons, atoms, and such would be variable in size over time. But I think it indicates that you could see the "early universe" subjectively not as a short bang, but as an infinitely long period of time with a large universe in which there was constant activity. Still, no matter how you look at it, there is no space outside the Universe, by definition, and there's no empty, cold, dark place available at the beginning. 70.15.116.59 05:24, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

expansion considered in general relativity before Hubble

Does "universal expansion was considered mathematically in the context of general relativity well before Hubble made his analysis and observations," mean that GR predicted metric expansion? If possible, I think we should say that, or at least something stronger than "considered mathematically". Publicola 15:13, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

It was predicted, but since very few people understood general relativity at the time, few people were aware of the prediction. ScienceApologist 16:29, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

A source for this would be fantastic. Publicola 04:08, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

The canonical references for that are Alexander Friedman's 1922 "Über die Krümmung des Raumes" in Z. Phys and Georges Lemaitre in a 1927 Annales de la Societe scientifique de Bruxelles article. 122.145.8.149 13:24, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

A few thoughts to ponder

If all matter in the universe was once in a single collected location, would it not be too dense and have too much mass to escape itself and "bang"? Could the "expanding" scientists are seeing simply be a "breathing" action of a larger universe we do not understand yet? Perhaps it grows and shrinks after long periods of time. I find it interesting that while scientific theory cannot be proven with today's knowledge people tend to rely on it as fact and completely dismiss the idea of intelligent design, sure it is only theory as well. Why not, as scientists, be open to the possibility of a higher form of energy of intellectual properties which could have created us? I've noticed too often that people claim we have evolved, they teach this in school but they ban prayer, either one is just theory. One person may have a miraculous experience and say it is evidence of a creator, but they still can't prove it. One might compare two fossils and say it is the process of evolution, again it cannot be proven. Why is there such bias towards science alone and against the idea of a creator? We, mankind, have not been here long enough to make such solid claims as "the universe is expanding" it may be expanding now, but perhaps it will shrink in another 8,000,000,000 years.. either destroying itself and banging again, or just expanding again. The expansion we witness may appear to us as a large scale, or HUGE but it all depends how large the observer is, the expansion may be very very small from another perspective. For all we know, we are inside of a quark, inside of an electron, inside of an atom inside of a snow globe which rests on a child's dresser. Davidthewavid —Preceding comment was added at 04:12, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I deleted this section as I don't really feel it contributes in any way to the discussion about the Big Bang Wikipedia entry, and someone reversed my deletion. I don't think I was out of line as the talk page guidelines specify deletion of entries is acceptable if the entry is, "not relevant to improving the article." The above paragraph represents mostly fanciful speculation. thryllkill (talk) 22:55, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Falsifiability of Dark Energy and the Big Bang

There seems to be little discussion of the weakest links in the logical chain of thought regarding the Big Bang, especially the lambda CDM version, the so called standard model. For instance, the argument concerning acceleration of expansion since 9 billion years ago depends critically on an interpretation of the high z SN-1a results. These supernovae seem to be further away than they should be based on a value of H0. Which value? They are not further if some values are used and are even further if others are used. Why use the value that was used and why discount other values?

As a matter of fact, Tony Smith's Cosconsensus website identified several H0 values that are purportedly of high quality and are probably reliable. They were determined by the use of standard candles at various ranges of distances. If these values are plotted versus the average distances of the ranges, H0 is seen to be not a constant at all, so it is useful only for objects in the respective ranges of distances. This is why H is often referred to as a parameter. To use H0 properly, one must zero in on an answer by successive approximations.

More importantly, H0 increases substantially along a very tight linear regression line as distance from us increases. If an inappropriate value for H0 was used to compare the present expansion rate of the universe with the distances to high z SN-1a objects and with the expansion rate therein implied, the conclusion that the expansion rate of the universe is accelerating could be wrong.

Curiously, one can use the high z SN-1a results to find a new value of H0. One also finds a value for H0 using CMB data. According to data compiled by Smith, I find that these and the earlier determinations all fall on the same tight linear regression line having negative or decreasing slope toward the present era or position. But, if the universe is enlarging at an accelerating rate, H0 should be increasing toward the present.

It is a mistake to state that high z SN-1a results imply that the expansion rate was lower in the distant past, as stated in the article. H0 calculated from the high z supernovae absolute luminosity distances and actual redshifts is higher than all but the CMB determinations.

This is not my data nor my research. It is plain fact available for anyone to analyze. H0 increases linearly with distance away from us or decreases on approach to our present position or time. At least a half dozen truly independent measurements show this. Contrary evidence for the Big Bang, Inflation or Dark Energy should not be so easily swept under a cover. Why should an encyclopedic article be so chained to consensus? Consensus has frequently been wrong. I call this the H0 paradox or the Hubble problem of the Dark Energy hypothesis.

Other weak points are the codependence of several phenomena that are used to "independently" corroborate this acceleration conclusion and the implied existence of Dark Energy, like the pattern of clusters or the large scale structure of the universe. Corroboration must come from truly independent lines of observation or experiment not from corrolated measurements. Also, the unsupported premise of Dark Matter is used to help reinforce the Dark Energy hypothesis, as if the existence of dark matter had already been proven.

For any theory to be considered valid, it must be falsifiable. A null hypothesis must be constructed and the evidence for or against it must be evaluated. The null hypothesis is one that nullifies the original hypothesis, it must be contradictory. If the null hypothesis can be proven true or false by means of a critical experiment, the theory or hypothesis in question is denied or proven. More attention should be given to null hypotheses and their disproof. This is especially true regarding Dark Energy because statements have been made regarding it by prominent scientists that threaten the integrity of science itself.

We cannot relax our grip on science by loosening our standards for proof, as has been suggested. If Dark Energy, quintessence or a nonzero cosmological constant are not experimentally falsifiable hypotheses, they do not deserve to be regarded as viable hypotheses at all in the first place.

The biggest objection to Dark Energy is that it indeed appears to be unfalsifiable - miraculous. How ironic it is that the scientific method has brought us so far that we may feel free to begin to doubt it. We doubt in order to embrace an ad hoc hypothesis for our convenience and to cloak our lack of imagination. It is no small matter that experiments to determine the repulsive effect of vacuum energy due to quantum fluctuations show that it is a hundred orders of magnitude too large to account for Dark Energy. The real paradox is that problems like this are minimized or dismissed by we who profess allegiance to the scientific method.

So, the best resolution to the paradox of Dark Energy and Neo Inflation or Acceleration is that they do not exist. It is simpler to believe that a short sequence of misconceptions, misinterpretations, mistakes and mistatements has resulted in propagation of a big error than to believe in such a momentous miracle.

I am sorry. I cannot remain neutral when the discussion touches on the scientific method. I support it.

Gary Kent

Kentgen1 05:58, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not qualified to debate you scientifically, but that isn't what this page is for anyway. Have you read the infoboxes at the top of the page, especially the one that begins, "IMPORTANT: This is not the place to discuss how you think the universe began..."? Following those links will give you extensive answers to "Why should an encyclopedic article be so chained to consensus?" "Consensus has often been wrong", but more often it has been right, especially on Wikipedia which attracts people with much stranger ideas than yours. Art LaPella 21:18, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Exactly, Art. Gary's post, largely about dark energy, is not at all integral to the big bang theory, at least not yet. Gary, you should present your argument on the BAUT Forum - www.bautforum.com . --Cougar --64.122.177.153 (talk) 17:43, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

BUT EVEN IF THE BIG BANG HAPPENED WHO CREATED THAT LIL DOT THAT CAUSED THE BIG BANG?

THINK ABOUT THAT 1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.188.17.249 (talk) 08:50, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Why does it need to be a "who"? What's wrong with a "what"? In which case, lots of people are thinking about that. Mike Peel 09:42, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Take note of the opening paragraph. "The Big Bang is the 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. The term is also used in a narrower sense to describe the fundamental "fireball" that erupted at or close to an initial time-point in the history of our observed spacetime." ... it is essential to understand that the event often called the Big Bang, refers to the origin of "observed spacetime". It is erroneous to assume that observation coincided with the origin of the universe. That we cannot see beyond this temporal curtain, does not mean that there is nothing beyond it. Bpabbott 17:45, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Cause of Big Bang

Disclaimer: this is not a creationist rant.

This article is quite large, and by just skimming through it I can't find any discussion of origins of Big Bang. Not origins of the theory, but "what caused Big Bang to happen". I remember reading something about fluctuation of energy in vacuum that might have caused creation of great amount of energy which then triggered the Big Bang or something like that. Anyway, is there a section in this article which presents scientific theories of origin of Big Bang? --78.0.90.120 09:16, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Second-to-last section. ScienceApologist 15:33, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
"Speculative physics beyond the Big Bang"? I don't see anything about what caused Bing Bang there. If that section truly is supposed to answer that question, then the section need serious rewrite for clarity... --78.1.107.253 18:17, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
From the overview: "How closely we can extrapolate towards the singularity is debated—certainly not earlier than the Planck epoch. The early hot, dense phase is itself referred to as "the Big Bang". There is no consensus about how long the Big Bang phase lasted: for some writers this denotes only the initial singularity, for others the whole history of the universe." If you are looking for first causes, that's as good as you're going to get. ScienceApologist 20:57, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
There appears (to me) to be some confusion on what constitutes the event referred to as the Big Bang. This event marks the origin of the observable universe. The question isn't what created the content of the universe, but what conditions/phenomena enabled observation to become eternal. In my opinion, past versions of this page were less misleading on this point. I'm tempted to edit the page to add the term "observable" in several instances where the word "universe" is used in the context of its evolution or origin. Comments? Bpabbott 18:08, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Bpabbott, you are quite right that there is a lot of confusion about "the big bang." The name of this widely encompassing theory is a terrible misnomer. As I've mentioned elsewhere, we know next to nothing about the "event". We do know a remarkable amount about what happened after that, even as little as one second after. Besides, the big bang is not an event. It is a scientific theory built on observations. With no evidence of the so-called event, it is simply not part of the theory. -- Cougar --64.122.177.153 (talk) 20:45, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

"The Big Bang Theory

Typing "the big bang theory" into the search now directs to a tv show. Good as the show is, isn't the origin of the universe a bit more significant? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.230.161.164 (talk) 01:05, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I like the show too, but the redirection should go to the more important issue not the one that is more like.216.49.97.10 (talk) 03:20, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
A Google search shows that "The Big Bang Theory" means the scientific theory about twice as often as it means the TV show. The history page for The Big Bang Theory (TV series) shows it was moved to The Big Bang Theory on November 20 by User:David Levy with the comment "unnecessary qualifier". Although there is a Wikipedia:Hatnote, I think it's more important to direct readers to Big Bang, although we also need a way to find the TV series. So I suggest a disambiguation page, with a See Also link to Big Bang Theory (album). Art LaPella (talk) 06:05, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
I performed the page move simply because The Big Bang Theory was a redirect to The Big Bang Theory (TV series) (which defied our naming conventions and served no practical purpose).
I do, however, believe that the former is an appropriate title for the article about the television show. The phrase unquestionably refers to the scientific theory with greater frequency, but not in title case (with an uppercase "T" in "Theory"). The title also includes the word "The," the presence of which Wikipedia's naming conventions would not allow in an article about the scientific theory.
Note that the above (legitimate) complaint about "the big bang theory" leading to the article about the TV series was due to the fact that The big bang theory (without title case) was redirecting there. I just edited it to redirect to Big Bang instead. —David Levy 07:31, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
OK. Art LaPella (talk) 21:33, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Age of the universe and Hubble Deep Field

In the Big Bang article, it says the age of the universe is about 13.7 billion years. In the Hubble Deep Field (HDF) article, it says that the galaxies seen there are about 12 billion light years away. If everything in the universe was at the location of the Big Bang 13.7 billion years ago, how did those galaxies manage to get 12 billion light years away from us by now? I thought that only very light things like, um, light, could travel at the speed of light, and galaxies aren't light, they are very heavy!

If we assume that the HDF region is unremarkable, as its article says, then presumably looking in the opposite direction, somewhere "south" of the Earth, would reveal lots of galaxies 12 billion light years away in that direction too. That would make the universe have a diameter of 24 billion light years. However, I wouldn't be surprised if astronomers discovered more galaxies even further away than the HDF galaxies once better telescopes are built.

So this is what I find hard to understand. If the Big Bang was about 14 billion years ago, then those galaxies in the HDF must have been travelling very quickly to get 12 billion light years away. I'm finding it hard to calculate exactly how fast they must have travelled. Here's what I'm thinking. The galaxies are 12 billion light years away, which means that the light from them must have taken 12 billion years to get to us. In other words, they were 12 billion light years away from where we are now, 12 billion years ago. Doesn't that mean that they must have travelled to 12 billion light years away from here in only 1.7 billion years from the Big Bang? (I'm not saying they travelled faster than the speed of light, since I'm not assuming that the Big Bang was right here.)

How would one calculate how fast those galaxies must have been going to get from the Big Bang to 12 billion light years away? How would one calculate the amount of energy needed to get a galaxy moving fast enough to get that far away?

I'm not an astrophysicist, so I might have made some really basic errors or wrong assumptions there. But if I got it basically right, then it seems to me that the existence of galaxies 12 billion light years away in one direction, and presumably the same distance away in the opposite direction, proves that the Big Bang either didn't happen, or was a lot longer ago than 14 billion years, or the distance of 12 billion years to HDF galaxies is wrong, or something really weird happens at the "edge of the universe". Thanks for reading, and please tell me what you think. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.253.80.200 (talk) 10:31, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

You're obliquely referring to the horizon problem which is an issue scientists have been aware of for some time. However, I think your misconceptions may run a bit deeper. In particulary, there are two assumptions you have made which are problematic: 1) you assume that the initial condition for the Big Bang was such that everything was causally connected (in other words, everything started from the same place), but this needn't be the case 2) that galaxies are "traveling" when they follow the metric expansion of space, but this is also incorrect. Both of these misconceptions together lead to some rather bizarre twists of logic as you have demonstrated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ScienceApologist (talk • contribs) 14:35, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Something to think about..

Okay.. so space is everything right...what contains space though? can u posable see something being "endless" [or at least our (being humanity's) understanding of the word]? Just picture it and the posibilities are endless. and to all think that mabye everything in the entire...I csn't even beginnin to think of a word..how about Everything...mabye everything that is everything that ever was or is now, could have all been once a single body of mass... it drives me crazy just trying to think about it. 69.248.209.198 (talk) 01:22, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

122.167.240.91 (talk) 21:04, 24 December 2007 (UTC)About the basic idea

122.167.240.91 (talk) 21:04, 24 December 2007 (UTC)I am a student of Engineering in India and i wanna know some basic ideas about the big bang theory. Can any one please tel me on what basis the universe was said to be expanding,is it only based on the positions of the objects determined by the images got by the observations made(ie. is it based on the received light from the objects or other type of emittions made by the objects) or is there any other basis how it has been theorised.And can anyone please tel me how wide the universe is? and on what basis it has be caliculated

All of the information you ask is in this article. Did you read it? 209.77.205.9 (talk) 00:47, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Did he understand it? See WP:BITE. You could either direct him to the WP:Reference desk, or to the last 2 paragraphs of Big Bang#Hubble's law and the expansion of space which gives some idea of an answer to his first question - I didn't find answers here to the other questions. Art LaPella (talk) 02:10, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Comparison with global warming

Looking at the treatment of dissenting views here, it seems that WP:WEIGHT is being applied much more rigorously than in relation to Global warming. At least if you just count heads, it seems as if dissenters from the Big Bang model with relevant qualifications in physics are at least as numerous as dissenters from AGW with relevant qualifications in climate science. Not that I'm objecting, but I was surprised to find (via a trawl through Conservapedia I have to admit), this "scientists dispute Big Bang" statement [5] of a kind familiar from the AGW debate. The signatories seem rather more high-powered than those of the typical AGW letter (fewer "retired" this and "consultant" that, for example) and some of the retired signatories are names even I recognise. I suspect the problem is more with the GW piece than here, but perhaps the statement could be modified a little. JQ (talk) 07:54, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Most of the signatories to the cosmology statement are either "usual suspects" or not cosmologists. There really is no controversy in the scientific field and, unlike global warming, there is very little in the way of a media controversy either (despite the attempts of Halton Arp, Jayant Narlikar, and others to get their views more visibility). This article used to be riddled with "controversy". However, it was easily determined through citation analysis that the people supporting the existence of a "controversy" and who disputed the Big Bang were of such a minority that their opinions could be relegated to one or two sentences. Those sentences are still there in the article giving the appropriate weight to these ideas. I encourage you to use this article as a standard for global warming if you'd like. We went through a lot of headaches to get it to the state it is today. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:01, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for this. I'll see if there's a way I can promote this as a model for GW.JQ (talk) 20:09, 28 December 2007 (UTC)