Talk:Big Bang

IMPORTANT: This is not the place to discuss how you think the universe began, or to discuss whether or not the Big Bang model is correct. This page is for discussing improvements to the article. The article is about the Big Bang model, with content based on information presented in peer-reviewed scientific literature about it or other appropriate sources. See Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. For religious aspects, see Religious interpretations of the Big Bang theory.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Big Bang article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25Auto-archiving period: 30 days

	Big Bang is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
	This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on February 23, 2005.
Article milestones Date Process Result January 31, 2005 Peer review Reviewed February 4, 2005 Featured article candidate Promoted February 23, 2005 Today's featured article Main Page August 22, 2005 Featured article review Kept May 31, 2007 Featured article review Kept February 29, 2020 Featured article review Demoted Current status: Former featured article

This  level-3 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Astronomy: Cosmology Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Astronomy, which collaborates on articles related to Astronomy on Wikipedia.AstronomyWikipedia:WikiProject AstronomyTemplate:WikiProject AstronomyAstronomy articles Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by Cosmology task force. Physics Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics articles Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Skepticism Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Spoken Wikipedia This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles that are spoken on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Spoken WikipediaWikipedia:WikiProject Spoken WikipediaTemplate:WikiProject Spoken WikipediaSpoken Wikipedia articles

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

Therefore I suggest the following intro :

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

This makes sense to me. Ymblanter (talk) 12:37, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Both Alexander Friedmann and George Lemaître proposed an expanding metric for the universe based on solutions to Einstein's theory of General Relativity. In 1928, Lemaître suggested that the universe may have originated at a single point -- a "primeval atom". Note that Hoyle's 1948 steady-state model allowed for an expanding universe with no big bang. Hence, an expanding universe did not necessarily imply a big bang. I think that's why Lemaître gets credited. Praemonitus (talk) 13:38, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree on point (1). The "big bang" as an event does not even have a consistent definition within scientific discourse. It is better for the article's opening to describe the (well defined) theory instead of attempting to describe the (ill defined) event. Aseyhe (talk) 20:26, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"IMPORTANT: This is not the place to discuss how you think the universe began, or to discuss whether or not the Big Bang model is correct. "

Duly noted. But this is not about debating the beginning of the universe but rather to question why the article currently mention the idea of the beginning of the universe at all.

The article mention this: "According to the Big Bang models, the universe at the beginning was very hot and very compact"

Where does the idea that the Big Bang models describe the beginning of the universe come from? It might be a spectacular event and a drastic change in the state of the universe but does that justify to talk about it as a description of the beginning of the universe?

Shouldn't the article be more cautious and simply describe the big bang theory as a prediction of the past of the universe as far in the past as the models are adequate to do so? PipMcDohl (talk) 03:19, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than saying "According to the Big Bang models, the universe at the beginning was very hot and very compact" shouldn't the article say "At the furthest point in the past the Big Bang models are adequate to predict, the universe was very hot and very compact". Less poetic but more accurate, right?

One way to picture the problem is to call it a language issue. We could talk of the big bang theory as describing the beginning of the "known" universe. Meaning by this the eras of the universes that we can start to describe with reliable models. But the wording "beginning of the known universe" is misleading as we don't know the first era described by the models to be the very first era of the universe altogether. We could name it the first era but only as "the first era in the timeline that we can predict and describe". Naming that first era "beginning" is questionable.

Scientifically, we can't definitively speak to the "Universe" (upper case), meaning the entirety of existence. Saying "known universe" (lower case) is redundant wording, as that is implicit. I don't see a need to hem and haw about speculative possibilities we don't know. If that still bothers you, we could always add a footnote. Praemonitus (talk) 13:10, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Since the article first sentence refers to Georges Lemaitre, a priest, surely the word Biblical is a major lack. Since this scientist/physicist is not known to have denied the existence if a Cre-ator, somehow there is room for additional wikitext.

A 2014 article with the title "New Big Bang evidence supports Biblical creation, says Orthodox physicist" and I'll try to shoehorn it in, but first it's to be recognized that the article's LEDE's "Physics lacks" wording appears to be misplaced. Shoehorn second. Nuts240 (talk) 01:23, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? Writing doesn't generally benefit from a robust checklist of Words That Must Appear—especially ones that aren't jargon particular to the topic.

Perhaps you should pause and try to concretely state what your editorial concerns actually are, given you yourself are describing the potential remedies as "shoehorning". Remsense诉 02:46, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You may be looking for the "Religious interpretations of the Big Bang theory" article. The article on Georges Lemaître doesn't mention the Bible. Praemonitus (talk) 03:12, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect Beyond the Big Bang has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 August 26 § Beyond the Big Bang until a consensus is reached. 1234qwer1234qwer4 02:26, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"derviation" instead of "derivation"? 125.254.119.180 (talk) 13:17, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Fixed. Thanks for spotting that. –CWenger (^ • @) 13:23, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]