![]() | 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 | ← | Archive 23 | Archive 24 | Archive 25 |
![]() | This
edit request to
Big Bang has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
![]() | This article may be too technical for most readers to understand.(April 2017) |
Kernelpi ( talk) 23:34, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Big Bang. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 00:08, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Big Bang. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.scientificblogging.com/hammock_physicist/big_bang_big_bewildermentWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 21:28, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Big Bang has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
We offer this article online now and suggest to link to it as a weblink: https://www.theologie-naturwissenschaften.de/startseite/leitartikelarchiv/big-bang.html (The article itself is in English) 193.248.137.120 ( talk) 00:00, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
Many scientists doubt the big bang theory and have published against it. A Criticism section should be added, for articles such as this: http://www.ibtimes.com/does-light-experiment-disprove-big-bang-theory-photon-energy-loss-questions-expanding-2560055 47.201.178.44 ( talk) 13:59, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
The word Universe should begin with a capital U since it's a proper noun, just as the Sun and Moon are capitalized. It irks me every time I read about the "sun", the "moon" and the "universe" (as well as referring to other stars as "other suns", or other star systems as "solar systems"). I'd like to capitalize every instance of "universe" on this page, but as there are over 100 I thought it would be a good idea to announce it first before doing so, in case it was summarily reverted and my efforts were wasted. So, any objections? nagual design 01:06, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
As usual, my favorite tool for settling this type of thing is google Ngram. Here is a google Ngram comparison of the uses of "universe" vs. "Universe" in English printed literature over the last two centuries. Quite consistently "universe" is ten times as common as "Universe". Some part of this may be attributed to people talking about hypothetical other universes, however this is likely a smaller portion as becomes immediately apparent when inlcuding "universes" in the comparison. T R 21:23, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
I've participated in some of these discussions, and I don't care to again. I don't think we can reach a consensus either way. The only way I can see us going forward is to flip a coin (or some agreed upon lottery number) and let fate decide it. I agree that the present mixed use looks sloppy. SchreiberBike | ⌨ 22:21, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Big Bang. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 19:21, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Big Bang has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Edit Request: As part of the movement to make scientific information more accessible to the general public, we are exploring wikipedia pages that may not communicate their ideas per the Tone requirements of Wikipedia in the Summary Section. When non-scientific people are curious about these topics, the wikipedia pages are often the first search result in Google. Though I agree that they should be a comprehensive description of the topic, the first two paragraphs can make or break whether that interested individual feels capable of digging deeper into the subject. Many are scared off. And surprisingly, by this page in particular!
Below are some suggestions for simplify the English and making a more inviting experience without compromising the message. Splitting long, comma-ridden sentences into two or three sentences. Removing passive voice where it is not necessary to keep the rigor of the message. Simplify unnecessary jargon.
These are all requested in consistency with the Wikipedia Tone suggestions: /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Writing_better_articles#Tone
Example of English Simplification: ORIGINAL-- "The Big Bang theory is the prevailing cosmological model for the universe[1] from the earliest known periods through its subsequent large-scale evolution." SUGGESTED-- "The Big Bang theory is the prevailing model to describe the origin of the universe. This cosmological model also explains the evolution of the universe from the earliest known moments of existence until now. "
Examples of Jargon to rephrase or define:
"extrapolated to the highest density regime" -- An attempt to google "highest density regime" yielded no results outside of published papers.
ORIGINAL -- "If the known laws of physics are extrapolated to the highest density regime, the result is a singularity which is typically associated with the Big Bang."
SUGGESTED -- "The mathematical approach of connecting the two theories of classical mechanics (general relativity and quantum mechanics), results in a singularity. This singularity is typically associated with the initial state of the universe the moment before the Big Bang."
Kernelpi (
talk)
23:21, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
There's a simple rubric for this: up to what energy level have particle physicists verified our theories? Anything higher and we can say that the laws of physics are inapplicable, given that the notion of physical law is bound up with the notion of observation. 208.76.28.70 ( talk) 20:00, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
The big bang is the explanation of the universe. -- BriannaOrdaz ( talk) 21:22, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
Note to moderators: The expernal link http://BigBangBitBang.blogspot.com should be added. 73.46.49.164 ( talk) 16:17, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
There is an omission regarding the CMB. The microwave radiation ('Cosmic Noise') was first measured by Robert Dicke in 1946 when he turned experimental horn type radiometer (similar to Penzias and Wilson's) to the sky and showed that cosmic noise, as he called it, had to be constrained to below 20K (the resolution of the instrument). He even shows a drawing of a tapered rectangular horn antenna similar to the one used by Penzias and Wilson. The results and his conclusion were published in a paper:
"Atmospheric Absorption Measurement with a Microwave Radiometer", Volume 70, numbers 4 and 5, September 1 and 15, 1946.
From the paper:"It is also found that there is very little (<20°K) radiation from cosmic matter at radiometer wavelengths." and "a small amount of cosmic noise if distributed uniformly in every direction does not introduce much error" (because it is below 20K)
And also a related paper discussing the techniques of measuring microwave energy: "The Measurement of Thermal Radiation at Microwave Frequencies Review of Scientific Instruments 17, 268 (1946) doi: 10.1063/1.1770483 http://dx.doi.org/10.1063/1.1770483 Published by the American Institute of Physics
Dicke, along with Peebles, wrote a series of papers in the 1950s predicting and describing the CMB. It was a public lecture on the CMB given by Dicke, attended by Penzias and Wilson, that alerted them to the nature of the noise they had been measuring. Dicke was planning an experiment to measure the CMB and the equipment was almost ready at the time of the Penzias and Wilson discovery. The article neglected to mention Peebles and Dicke's contribution to the prediction of the CMB, a prediction guided by an actual measurement 20 years earlier.
![]() | This
edit request to
Big Bang has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change from -
Before observations of dark energy, cosmologists considered two scenarios for the future of the universe. If the mass density of the universe were greater than the critical density, then the universe would reach a maximum size and then begin to collapse. It would become denser and hotter again, ending with a state similar to that in which it started—a Big Crunch. [1]
Change to -
Cosmologists consider two scenarios for the future of the universe. If the mass density of the universe were greater than the critical density, then the universe would reach a maximum size and then begin to collapse. It would become denser and hotter again, ending with a state similar to that in which it started—a Big Crunch. [1]
Reason - is in past tense- no observations yet proven. Woodhe ( talk) 13:53, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
Science Daily says there is hardly a consensus among scientists for the big bang theory. This should be quoted in Wikipedia's article. Source : https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/11/171127105935.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.201.178.44 ( talk) 03:42, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
The exact quote is this, and it should be included in the Wikipedia article:
Although for five decades, the Big Bang theory has been the best known and most accepted explanation for the beginning and evolution of the Universe, it is hardly a consensus among scientists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.201.178.44 ( talk) 14:22, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
Big Bang skepticism needs an article. Sufficient, sent, discuss. - Booksnarky ( talk) 02:51, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
Lie: Since Georges Lemaître first noted in 1927 that an expanding universe could be traced back in time to an originating single point
Truth (accord to my level of knowledge): Eureka (1848) (E. A. Poe - "From the one Particle, as a centre let us suppose to be irradiated spherically...") Tomas Bilina ( talk) 05:47, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
There are quite a few errors/ambiguities concerning Big Bang coverage in the related article Chronology of the universe. Some are actively misinforming readers. They need someone who can fix them.
Please look! Thank you. FT2 ( Talk | email) 06:52, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
Can some one add about the beginning of big bang as a result of quantum fluctuations of metastable false vaccum. [2] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.226.136.96 ( talk) 08:04, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
References
kolb_c3
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Hi everyone,
Big Bang Theory concept is from Georges Lemaître.
And I would like to add in the text :
"Georges Lemaître, a belgian catholic, first noted in 1927 that an expanding universe could be traced back in time to an originating single point, scientists have built on his idea of cosmic expansion. The scientific community was once divided between supporters of two different theories, the Big Bang and the Steady State theory, but a wide range of empirical evidence has strongly favored the Big Bang which is now universally accepted.
Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stouf1605 ( talk • contribs) 14:45, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Big Bang has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
there is a 9 year made image of the univers that is color coded, yet there is no definition of the color codes. It is stated that the colors represent age, but what do the colors represent? The image is credited to NASA / WMAP Science Team. Please explain what colors mean. 67.40.125.146 ( talk) 02:19, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
I didn't find in the article the location of the origination point of the Big Bang. Is that an intolerable omission? ( PeacePeace ( talk) 04:03, 29 July 2018 (UTC))
The Einstein-Cartan theory avoids the flatness problem as well as unphysical singularities. I believe this link needs be included in the Flatness Problem section. /info/en/?search=Einstein%E2%80%93Cartan_theory#Avoidance_of_singularities 47.201.190.53 ( talk) 19:26, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
(Extremely old postulation. I don't claim it's right or wrong. It has to be mentioned. If you mathematically fix it well it's absolutely equivalent with the popular theory (I repeat, fix it well - because some fix it to fail because they love the standard religion), and you can think among theories when you face something difficult. Then you can discribe in different ways the same phenomena.)
Everything shrinks (gets impacted by dark energy) from an initial ultra dense state. We call it big bang.
Afar light doesn't shrink but afar matter does, so we interpret the light as being stretched.
Near matter and near light, shrinks almost with the same pace, except for a tiny percentage which contributes to gravity and dark matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:587:4104:9000:B82A:A462:371:563F ( talk) 20:34, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
There are viable alternatives to general relativity which forbid singularities such as the Big Bang. This should be mentioned in Wikipedia's Big Bang article. See /info/en/?search=Einstein%E2%80%93Cartan_theory#Avoidance_of_singularities 47.201.190.53 ( talk) 02:51, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
What is going on with the caption for the graphic immediately below the words "Part of a series on Physical Cosmology" ? If you click on the picture, the caption beneath seems inappropriately long and rambling. I'm not qualified to judge its accuracy, but it looks a little fishy to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:645:C000:AF7B:9104:FDB8:FFE5:BF20 ( talk) 23:16, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
The dying stars are the brightest stars. They and their orbiters are shrinking in size and distance. When we look out as far as we can see the normal emitters are interfered out of view by these dying stars. Therefore, rather than expansion the most visible emitters are simply getting smaller. THERE IS NO EXPANSION, no beginning. Even life that is trapped inside Volcanic rock under the sea has no beginning. It is simply redistributed when a a planet breaks up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.132.9.140 ( talk) 11:55, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
As the Universe accelerates, after some period loses all innate causal connection among its components and reBig Bangs.
just another theory - we should mention all theories — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
2A02:587:4102:8000:9598:4471:8BEA:5385 (
talk)
16:35, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
User:Oldstone James firstly changed content from "Current conception of the Big Bang model assumes the existence of energy, time, and space, and does not comment about their origin or the cause of the dense and high temperature initial state of the universe" to "Current conception of the Big Bang model assumes the existence of energy as well as currently understood laws of physics and does not comment about their origin or the cause of the dense and high temperature initial state of the universe." which made no sense, and then changed it to "Current conception of the Big Bang model assumes the existence of energy as well as the existence of currently understood laws of physics about their origin or the cause of the dense and high temperature initial state of the universe" which also made no sense. Then it was been changed to "assumes the existence of energy and does not comment about their origin" to what is "their" referring to now? I asked. Please gain consensus here for any further changes. Theroadislong ( talk) 18:44, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
Since this is a scientific page, it should follow scientific terminology.
The word "theory" is very specific in the field of science. I recommend reading https://curiosity.com/topics/whats-the-difference-between-a-fact-a-hypothesis-a-theory-and-a-law-in-science-curiosity/.
The Big Bang has withstood multiple tests and evidence has been provided for it to have happened. In such a situation, it should not be called a theory.
Even Britannica shows this: https://www.britannica.com/science/big-bang-model. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.4.213.114 ( talk) 12:54, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
The part of the Wright article that is currently cited in note 9 does not say that the Big Bang Theory explains Hubble’s Law, as the wiki article currently states in the opening paragraph. The cited reference states that the expansion of the universe is evidence of the Big Bang. SmallMossie ( talk) 21:27, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
This article has not undergone a Featured Article Review since 2007; in the meantime, our FA standards have risen dramatically, and I don't believe that this article currently passes them.
That's only what I've seen so far for my first run through. I'll see whether these problems can be fixed, and to what extent I can help, but if these issues are unaddressed I'm afraid I'll have to bring this to FAR. However, other cosmology articles do have high quality and I wouldn't be surprised to find this reparable.
– John M Wolfson ( talk • contribs) 07:12, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
The Message of The Qur'an is an English translation and interpretation of the Qur'an by Muhammad Asad, an Austrian Jew who converted to Islam, and its listed in the bibliography. What does that have to do with Big Bang theory? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Conspiracy of Equals ( talk • contribs) 15:08, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
This edit of mine was reverted by @ Szymioza: with no reason given. I moved it because it belonged in the discussion of the evolution of the big bang, rather than in the Pre-Big Bang Cosmology. I still believe that, so I would like to understand why that is not a good reason. Thanks. (Hmm, the user's talk page contains a number of warning tags, so perhaps there was not a good reason?) Praemonitus ( talk) 19:23, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
In my opinion in belongs in the Pre-Big Bang Cosmology. That's because it explains that big bang was "possible" (no energy needed) and how matter could go into existence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Szymioza ( talk • contribs) 22:25, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
So, you might be right with the quantum fluctuations. Now, it's good after adding "A topologically flat universe implies a balance between gravitational potential energy and other forms, requiring no additional energy to be created". Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Szymioza ( talk • contribs) 11:15, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
Hello. There is a list of possible 'causes' of the Big Bang in the Pre-Big Bang Cosmology section. The simplest model of Big Bang 'cause' is still absent there, though. I had added it some time ago:
Unfortunately, this edit was deleted, even though I gave reliable sources. What is wrong with it, and how could I make it better?
Yes, but the case is I gave the sources. Isn't, for example, New York Times reliable? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Szymioza ( talk • contribs) 15:23, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
The user is not responding. I have even left a message on their talk page. Maybe, I will just post the edit again, while adding more sources, as you recommended. Then I will see how it is received. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Szymioza ( talk • contribs) 19:50, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
References
{{
cite web}}
: CS1 maint: url-status (
link)
{{
cite web}}
: CS1 maint: url-status (
link)
{{
cite news}}
: CS1 maint: url-status (
link)
There is no informations about the hipothetical cause of the Big Bang. I created this subsection and I want to put this to 'speculations' section, but my changes were reverted many times. Please tell me what's wrong with it and what i am supposed to change. Text:
Physics may conclude that time did not exist before 'Big Bang', but 'started' with the Big Bang, so there might be no 'beginning' or 'before'. [1] [2] Universe is almost flat (zero balance of energy), so no energy had to be created [3] [4] and probably Quantum fluctuations (or other laws of physics) 'after' (or 'instantly', because there was no time) the eternal, unchanging 'era' before the time could then randomly create the conditions for matter to occur.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Szymioza ( talk • contribs) 20:32, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
References
~~ the Big Bang theory cannot describe what the conditions were at the very beginning of the universe, it can help physicists describe the earliest moments after the start of the expansion I believe should be put in the introduction and referenced to https://home.cern/science/physics/early-universe — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C8:6F80:5B00:2C4B:CD53:350C:E168 ( talk) 16:08, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
The Big Bang model should be put in the Speculations category because there is no definitive proof that this happened. I am a Christian but I’m not going to pressure my beliefs, all theories of how time began should be placed in the Speculations category. B RexT Rex ( talk) 15:05, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
User:Sparkie82: I rephrased the sentence you were objecting to. Now that I understand what you were objecting to, I can see how those prepositions were confusing. Does this version work better for you? I'm still not quite happy with the phrasing. - Parejkoj ( talk) 19:11, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
There are three different ways that the term the Big Bang is used in cosmology. One is to describe the overarching theory, one is to describe the singularity, and one is to describe the event of initial expansion post-singularity. I think it is worth highlighting this in the lede as it seems to be a source of confusion for some. I tried my best to handle this, but there may be a better way, of course. jps ( talk) 01:39, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
At first glance there seems to be a conflict between these two sentences:
Am I missing something? Shouldn't the two values be the same, or some simple ratio thereof? They differ by >300. Praemonitus ( talk) 17:47, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
This ratio remained constants[sic] during the expansion of the universe and was therefore the same in the early, hot universe. When the universe was very hot, all particles were relativistic, and g∗S ~ 102. Therefore η ~ g∗SnB/s ~ 10−8, and assuming there were about as many baryons as antibaryons as photons (nb ∼ n¯b ∼ nγ), this gives (nb − n¯b )/nb ~ 10−8. Now assume that all the baryons were quarks, i.e. no nucleons had been formed yet, and we can conclude that for every 100 million antiquarks there were roughly 100 million and 1 quark. A tiny asymmetry but with important consequences!
![]() | This
edit request to
Big Bang has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the section on History - Development, there is a line referring to the accelerating expansion of the universe, ending with the "[citation needed]" statement. Here is the text fragment: Cosmologists now have fairly precise and accurate measurements of many of the parameters of the Big Bang model, and have made the unexpected discovery that the expansion of the universe appears to be accelerating.[citation needed] I propose adding the citation:
![]() | This
edit request to
Big Bang has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The Big Bang Is not formed by an sigularity but formed when one Ununoctium atom and its anti paricle blasted and the annihalte so these annahilation expanded the universe. Sanjay007123456 ( talk) 00:35, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
According to most physicists the term "precosmic state" is wrong (even that state is one period of the cosmic state/wavefunctional evolution of the universe), because space-time pre-existed (see: Stephen Hawking) necessarily (even in a different state in some theories).
The common theory is that our surrounding causal subluminal sphere was a spot (but not of exactly zero volume), and the whole spacetime/universe was still infinite (actually potentially infinite for each observer as it is now; because there is no IMMEDIATE causal connection outside each arbitrary observer's causal sphere [but there is some relay of causality; not only the central region exists in the causal spheres]) but denser.
![]() | This
edit request to
Big Bang has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the part "Hubble law and expansion of space", it is said that D is the comoving distance and that it varies as the universe expands (precisely "The theory requires the relation {\displaystyle v=HD}{\displaystyle v=HD} to hold at all times, where {\displaystyle D}D is the comoving distance"), but this is inconsistent with the definition of comoving distance, which by definition does not vary with the expansion. Also, following "Cosmology" from Weinberg, one has v = H*l, where l is this proper distance, since from FLRW metric, one can consider a fixed time so that proper distance is given by l = a(t)*ksi, where a(t) is the scale factor and ksi the comoving distance. When time-differentiated, it yields the above formula, namely v = H*l, q.e.d. 128.179.161.200 ( talk) 08:32, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Big Bang has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
168.212.126.191 ( talk) 17:37, 14 October 2021 (UTC)The Big Bang Theory is the leading explanation about how the universe began. At its simplest, it says the universe as we know it started with an infinitely hot, infinitely dense singularity, then inflated — first at unimaginable speed, and then at a more measurable rate — over the next 13.8 billion years to the cosmos that we know today.
Under "Features of the Model" in the "Expansion of Space" section, there's an unnecessary comma in this sentence:
In this coordinate system, the grid expands along with the universe, and objects that are moving only because of the expansion of the universe, remain at fixed points on the grid.
The third comma is not needed; I'm pretty sure it's ungrammatical. Does-she-talk ( talk) 22:44, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Under timeline, then under cooling we have this phrasing : -- The temperature was now no longer high enough to create new proton–antiproton pairs (similarly for neutrons–antineutrons), so a mass annihilation immediately followed, leaving just one in 108 of the original matter particles and none of their antiparticles.
This should be two sentences, and these parenthes are not needed. Could this be replaced with something like: -- The temperature was no longer high enough to create either new proton–antiproton or neutrons–antineutrons pairs. A mass annihilation immediately followed, leaving just one in 108 of the original matter particles and none of their antiparticles. 107.202.75.102 ( talk) 21:05, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Big Bang has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
CMB in the third paragraph should hyperlink to /info/en/?search=Cosmic_microwave_background 2A01:4C8:1562:EEC9:F93E:54AE:BCA1:70A9 ( talk) 12:39, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
There is this recent theory called Big Wave Theory (many articles online) that is not contemplated on the Ultimate Fate of the Universe section of this article. Was it left out for some reason? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Luckylemming ( talk • contribs) 17:15, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
The lead graphic is a misleading introductory visualisation of universe expansion. Please see my critique here; https://commons.wikimedia.org/?title=File_talk:CMB_Timeline300_no_WMAP.jpg#Graphical_representation_of_the_expansion_of_the_universe Richardbrucebaxter ( talk) 00:58, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
I see some issues with the lead, which is supposed to be "introduction to the article and a summary of its most important contents". First, there is no mention of baryon asymmetry, which is why we're even here to talk about it. It talks about dark matter and dark energy, but never mentions that they are unexplained by the theory. In fact, I'm not clear why we need most of the third paragraph. Finally, it spends an entire paragraph talking about big bang vs. steady state theory, which actually forms a pretty minor part of the article. Hence, I think it needs a rewrite to better reflect the article content. Thanks. Praemonitus ( talk) 02:33, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
precosmic state (religion) vs precosmic state (philosophy) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:2149:8B03:1000:50F8:F9A8:F91F:690E ( talk) 05:51, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect
Big Bang Theory and has thus listed it
for discussion. This discussion will occur at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 May 6#Big Bang Theory until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.
BilledMammal (
talk)
11:56, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
Why is the big bang described as "physical theory" instead of just "theory"? Seems confusing! BigBroster ( talk) 01:06, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Big Bang has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
"Big Bang Bogan" youtube channel link ( https://www.youtube.com/@BigBangBogan), was created based on the inspiration from Big Bang theory Santhanakrishnan25 ( talk) 14:22, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
With recent discoveries from the James Webb Telescope drawing attention to this topic, this Wikipedia article is apparently creating some confusion to readers conflating "Big Bang" with three different hypotheses: the initial singularity, the expanding universe, and a particular model for the expansion of the universe. One expert better describes this article's issues that need to be addressed: https://nautil.us/the-trouble-with-the-big-bang-238547. -- MPerel 16:34, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
I suggest we update article on recent findings by JWST and followed studies and "rethinkings" of the Big Bang theory. [5] [6] [7] AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 07:25, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
See also Galaxies in the Early Universe AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 07:28, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
Hello, I noticed the first mention of the "FLRW model" does not link to an existing Wikipedia article that further expands on the first use of this acronym, and I believe that it would be a helpful addition for context. OverwhelmingOdds ( talk) 00:01, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
![]() | 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 | ← | Archive 23 | Archive 24 | Archive 25 |
![]() | This
edit request to
Big Bang has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
![]() | This article may be too technical for most readers to understand.(April 2017) |
Kernelpi ( talk) 23:34, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Big Bang. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 00:08, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Big Bang. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.scientificblogging.com/hammock_physicist/big_bang_big_bewildermentWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 21:28, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Big Bang has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
We offer this article online now and suggest to link to it as a weblink: https://www.theologie-naturwissenschaften.de/startseite/leitartikelarchiv/big-bang.html (The article itself is in English) 193.248.137.120 ( talk) 00:00, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
Many scientists doubt the big bang theory and have published against it. A Criticism section should be added, for articles such as this: http://www.ibtimes.com/does-light-experiment-disprove-big-bang-theory-photon-energy-loss-questions-expanding-2560055 47.201.178.44 ( talk) 13:59, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
The word Universe should begin with a capital U since it's a proper noun, just as the Sun and Moon are capitalized. It irks me every time I read about the "sun", the "moon" and the "universe" (as well as referring to other stars as "other suns", or other star systems as "solar systems"). I'd like to capitalize every instance of "universe" on this page, but as there are over 100 I thought it would be a good idea to announce it first before doing so, in case it was summarily reverted and my efforts were wasted. So, any objections? nagual design 01:06, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
As usual, my favorite tool for settling this type of thing is google Ngram. Here is a google Ngram comparison of the uses of "universe" vs. "Universe" in English printed literature over the last two centuries. Quite consistently "universe" is ten times as common as "Universe". Some part of this may be attributed to people talking about hypothetical other universes, however this is likely a smaller portion as becomes immediately apparent when inlcuding "universes" in the comparison. T R 21:23, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
I've participated in some of these discussions, and I don't care to again. I don't think we can reach a consensus either way. The only way I can see us going forward is to flip a coin (or some agreed upon lottery number) and let fate decide it. I agree that the present mixed use looks sloppy. SchreiberBike | ⌨ 22:21, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Big Bang. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 19:21, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Big Bang has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Edit Request: As part of the movement to make scientific information more accessible to the general public, we are exploring wikipedia pages that may not communicate their ideas per the Tone requirements of Wikipedia in the Summary Section. When non-scientific people are curious about these topics, the wikipedia pages are often the first search result in Google. Though I agree that they should be a comprehensive description of the topic, the first two paragraphs can make or break whether that interested individual feels capable of digging deeper into the subject. Many are scared off. And surprisingly, by this page in particular!
Below are some suggestions for simplify the English and making a more inviting experience without compromising the message. Splitting long, comma-ridden sentences into two or three sentences. Removing passive voice where it is not necessary to keep the rigor of the message. Simplify unnecessary jargon.
These are all requested in consistency with the Wikipedia Tone suggestions: /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Writing_better_articles#Tone
Example of English Simplification: ORIGINAL-- "The Big Bang theory is the prevailing cosmological model for the universe[1] from the earliest known periods through its subsequent large-scale evolution." SUGGESTED-- "The Big Bang theory is the prevailing model to describe the origin of the universe. This cosmological model also explains the evolution of the universe from the earliest known moments of existence until now. "
Examples of Jargon to rephrase or define:
"extrapolated to the highest density regime" -- An attempt to google "highest density regime" yielded no results outside of published papers.
ORIGINAL -- "If the known laws of physics are extrapolated to the highest density regime, the result is a singularity which is typically associated with the Big Bang."
SUGGESTED -- "The mathematical approach of connecting the two theories of classical mechanics (general relativity and quantum mechanics), results in a singularity. This singularity is typically associated with the initial state of the universe the moment before the Big Bang."
Kernelpi (
talk)
23:21, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
There's a simple rubric for this: up to what energy level have particle physicists verified our theories? Anything higher and we can say that the laws of physics are inapplicable, given that the notion of physical law is bound up with the notion of observation. 208.76.28.70 ( talk) 20:00, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
The big bang is the explanation of the universe. -- BriannaOrdaz ( talk) 21:22, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
Note to moderators: The expernal link http://BigBangBitBang.blogspot.com should be added. 73.46.49.164 ( talk) 16:17, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
There is an omission regarding the CMB. The microwave radiation ('Cosmic Noise') was first measured by Robert Dicke in 1946 when he turned experimental horn type radiometer (similar to Penzias and Wilson's) to the sky and showed that cosmic noise, as he called it, had to be constrained to below 20K (the resolution of the instrument). He even shows a drawing of a tapered rectangular horn antenna similar to the one used by Penzias and Wilson. The results and his conclusion were published in a paper:
"Atmospheric Absorption Measurement with a Microwave Radiometer", Volume 70, numbers 4 and 5, September 1 and 15, 1946.
From the paper:"It is also found that there is very little (<20°K) radiation from cosmic matter at radiometer wavelengths." and "a small amount of cosmic noise if distributed uniformly in every direction does not introduce much error" (because it is below 20K)
And also a related paper discussing the techniques of measuring microwave energy: "The Measurement of Thermal Radiation at Microwave Frequencies Review of Scientific Instruments 17, 268 (1946) doi: 10.1063/1.1770483 http://dx.doi.org/10.1063/1.1770483 Published by the American Institute of Physics
Dicke, along with Peebles, wrote a series of papers in the 1950s predicting and describing the CMB. It was a public lecture on the CMB given by Dicke, attended by Penzias and Wilson, that alerted them to the nature of the noise they had been measuring. Dicke was planning an experiment to measure the CMB and the equipment was almost ready at the time of the Penzias and Wilson discovery. The article neglected to mention Peebles and Dicke's contribution to the prediction of the CMB, a prediction guided by an actual measurement 20 years earlier.
![]() | This
edit request to
Big Bang has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change from -
Before observations of dark energy, cosmologists considered two scenarios for the future of the universe. If the mass density of the universe were greater than the critical density, then the universe would reach a maximum size and then begin to collapse. It would become denser and hotter again, ending with a state similar to that in which it started—a Big Crunch. [1]
Change to -
Cosmologists consider two scenarios for the future of the universe. If the mass density of the universe were greater than the critical density, then the universe would reach a maximum size and then begin to collapse. It would become denser and hotter again, ending with a state similar to that in which it started—a Big Crunch. [1]
Reason - is in past tense- no observations yet proven. Woodhe ( talk) 13:53, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
Science Daily says there is hardly a consensus among scientists for the big bang theory. This should be quoted in Wikipedia's article. Source : https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/11/171127105935.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.201.178.44 ( talk) 03:42, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
The exact quote is this, and it should be included in the Wikipedia article:
Although for five decades, the Big Bang theory has been the best known and most accepted explanation for the beginning and evolution of the Universe, it is hardly a consensus among scientists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.201.178.44 ( talk) 14:22, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
Big Bang skepticism needs an article. Sufficient, sent, discuss. - Booksnarky ( talk) 02:51, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
Lie: Since Georges Lemaître first noted in 1927 that an expanding universe could be traced back in time to an originating single point
Truth (accord to my level of knowledge): Eureka (1848) (E. A. Poe - "From the one Particle, as a centre let us suppose to be irradiated spherically...") Tomas Bilina ( talk) 05:47, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
There are quite a few errors/ambiguities concerning Big Bang coverage in the related article Chronology of the universe. Some are actively misinforming readers. They need someone who can fix them.
Please look! Thank you. FT2 ( Talk | email) 06:52, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
Can some one add about the beginning of big bang as a result of quantum fluctuations of metastable false vaccum. [2] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.226.136.96 ( talk) 08:04, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
References
kolb_c3
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Hi everyone,
Big Bang Theory concept is from Georges Lemaître.
And I would like to add in the text :
"Georges Lemaître, a belgian catholic, first noted in 1927 that an expanding universe could be traced back in time to an originating single point, scientists have built on his idea of cosmic expansion. The scientific community was once divided between supporters of two different theories, the Big Bang and the Steady State theory, but a wide range of empirical evidence has strongly favored the Big Bang which is now universally accepted.
Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stouf1605 ( talk • contribs) 14:45, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Big Bang has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
there is a 9 year made image of the univers that is color coded, yet there is no definition of the color codes. It is stated that the colors represent age, but what do the colors represent? The image is credited to NASA / WMAP Science Team. Please explain what colors mean. 67.40.125.146 ( talk) 02:19, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
I didn't find in the article the location of the origination point of the Big Bang. Is that an intolerable omission? ( PeacePeace ( talk) 04:03, 29 July 2018 (UTC))
The Einstein-Cartan theory avoids the flatness problem as well as unphysical singularities. I believe this link needs be included in the Flatness Problem section. /info/en/?search=Einstein%E2%80%93Cartan_theory#Avoidance_of_singularities 47.201.190.53 ( talk) 19:26, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
(Extremely old postulation. I don't claim it's right or wrong. It has to be mentioned. If you mathematically fix it well it's absolutely equivalent with the popular theory (I repeat, fix it well - because some fix it to fail because they love the standard religion), and you can think among theories when you face something difficult. Then you can discribe in different ways the same phenomena.)
Everything shrinks (gets impacted by dark energy) from an initial ultra dense state. We call it big bang.
Afar light doesn't shrink but afar matter does, so we interpret the light as being stretched.
Near matter and near light, shrinks almost with the same pace, except for a tiny percentage which contributes to gravity and dark matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:587:4104:9000:B82A:A462:371:563F ( talk) 20:34, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
There are viable alternatives to general relativity which forbid singularities such as the Big Bang. This should be mentioned in Wikipedia's Big Bang article. See /info/en/?search=Einstein%E2%80%93Cartan_theory#Avoidance_of_singularities 47.201.190.53 ( talk) 02:51, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
What is going on with the caption for the graphic immediately below the words "Part of a series on Physical Cosmology" ? If you click on the picture, the caption beneath seems inappropriately long and rambling. I'm not qualified to judge its accuracy, but it looks a little fishy to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:645:C000:AF7B:9104:FDB8:FFE5:BF20 ( talk) 23:16, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
The dying stars are the brightest stars. They and their orbiters are shrinking in size and distance. When we look out as far as we can see the normal emitters are interfered out of view by these dying stars. Therefore, rather than expansion the most visible emitters are simply getting smaller. THERE IS NO EXPANSION, no beginning. Even life that is trapped inside Volcanic rock under the sea has no beginning. It is simply redistributed when a a planet breaks up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.132.9.140 ( talk) 11:55, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
As the Universe accelerates, after some period loses all innate causal connection among its components and reBig Bangs.
just another theory - we should mention all theories — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
2A02:587:4102:8000:9598:4471:8BEA:5385 (
talk)
16:35, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
User:Oldstone James firstly changed content from "Current conception of the Big Bang model assumes the existence of energy, time, and space, and does not comment about their origin or the cause of the dense and high temperature initial state of the universe" to "Current conception of the Big Bang model assumes the existence of energy as well as currently understood laws of physics and does not comment about their origin or the cause of the dense and high temperature initial state of the universe." which made no sense, and then changed it to "Current conception of the Big Bang model assumes the existence of energy as well as the existence of currently understood laws of physics about their origin or the cause of the dense and high temperature initial state of the universe" which also made no sense. Then it was been changed to "assumes the existence of energy and does not comment about their origin" to what is "their" referring to now? I asked. Please gain consensus here for any further changes. Theroadislong ( talk) 18:44, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
Since this is a scientific page, it should follow scientific terminology.
The word "theory" is very specific in the field of science. I recommend reading https://curiosity.com/topics/whats-the-difference-between-a-fact-a-hypothesis-a-theory-and-a-law-in-science-curiosity/.
The Big Bang has withstood multiple tests and evidence has been provided for it to have happened. In such a situation, it should not be called a theory.
Even Britannica shows this: https://www.britannica.com/science/big-bang-model. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.4.213.114 ( talk) 12:54, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
The part of the Wright article that is currently cited in note 9 does not say that the Big Bang Theory explains Hubble’s Law, as the wiki article currently states in the opening paragraph. The cited reference states that the expansion of the universe is evidence of the Big Bang. SmallMossie ( talk) 21:27, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
This article has not undergone a Featured Article Review since 2007; in the meantime, our FA standards have risen dramatically, and I don't believe that this article currently passes them.
That's only what I've seen so far for my first run through. I'll see whether these problems can be fixed, and to what extent I can help, but if these issues are unaddressed I'm afraid I'll have to bring this to FAR. However, other cosmology articles do have high quality and I wouldn't be surprised to find this reparable.
– John M Wolfson ( talk • contribs) 07:12, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
The Message of The Qur'an is an English translation and interpretation of the Qur'an by Muhammad Asad, an Austrian Jew who converted to Islam, and its listed in the bibliography. What does that have to do with Big Bang theory? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Conspiracy of Equals ( talk • contribs) 15:08, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
This edit of mine was reverted by @ Szymioza: with no reason given. I moved it because it belonged in the discussion of the evolution of the big bang, rather than in the Pre-Big Bang Cosmology. I still believe that, so I would like to understand why that is not a good reason. Thanks. (Hmm, the user's talk page contains a number of warning tags, so perhaps there was not a good reason?) Praemonitus ( talk) 19:23, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
In my opinion in belongs in the Pre-Big Bang Cosmology. That's because it explains that big bang was "possible" (no energy needed) and how matter could go into existence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Szymioza ( talk • contribs) 22:25, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
So, you might be right with the quantum fluctuations. Now, it's good after adding "A topologically flat universe implies a balance between gravitational potential energy and other forms, requiring no additional energy to be created". Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Szymioza ( talk • contribs) 11:15, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
Hello. There is a list of possible 'causes' of the Big Bang in the Pre-Big Bang Cosmology section. The simplest model of Big Bang 'cause' is still absent there, though. I had added it some time ago:
Unfortunately, this edit was deleted, even though I gave reliable sources. What is wrong with it, and how could I make it better?
Yes, but the case is I gave the sources. Isn't, for example, New York Times reliable? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Szymioza ( talk • contribs) 15:23, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
The user is not responding. I have even left a message on their talk page. Maybe, I will just post the edit again, while adding more sources, as you recommended. Then I will see how it is received. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Szymioza ( talk • contribs) 19:50, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
References
{{
cite web}}
: CS1 maint: url-status (
link)
{{
cite web}}
: CS1 maint: url-status (
link)
{{
cite news}}
: CS1 maint: url-status (
link)
There is no informations about the hipothetical cause of the Big Bang. I created this subsection and I want to put this to 'speculations' section, but my changes were reverted many times. Please tell me what's wrong with it and what i am supposed to change. Text:
Physics may conclude that time did not exist before 'Big Bang', but 'started' with the Big Bang, so there might be no 'beginning' or 'before'. [1] [2] Universe is almost flat (zero balance of energy), so no energy had to be created [3] [4] and probably Quantum fluctuations (or other laws of physics) 'after' (or 'instantly', because there was no time) the eternal, unchanging 'era' before the time could then randomly create the conditions for matter to occur.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Szymioza ( talk • contribs) 20:32, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
References
~~ the Big Bang theory cannot describe what the conditions were at the very beginning of the universe, it can help physicists describe the earliest moments after the start of the expansion I believe should be put in the introduction and referenced to https://home.cern/science/physics/early-universe — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C8:6F80:5B00:2C4B:CD53:350C:E168 ( talk) 16:08, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
The Big Bang model should be put in the Speculations category because there is no definitive proof that this happened. I am a Christian but I’m not going to pressure my beliefs, all theories of how time began should be placed in the Speculations category. B RexT Rex ( talk) 15:05, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
User:Sparkie82: I rephrased the sentence you were objecting to. Now that I understand what you were objecting to, I can see how those prepositions were confusing. Does this version work better for you? I'm still not quite happy with the phrasing. - Parejkoj ( talk) 19:11, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
There are three different ways that the term the Big Bang is used in cosmology. One is to describe the overarching theory, one is to describe the singularity, and one is to describe the event of initial expansion post-singularity. I think it is worth highlighting this in the lede as it seems to be a source of confusion for some. I tried my best to handle this, but there may be a better way, of course. jps ( talk) 01:39, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
At first glance there seems to be a conflict between these two sentences:
Am I missing something? Shouldn't the two values be the same, or some simple ratio thereof? They differ by >300. Praemonitus ( talk) 17:47, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
This ratio remained constants[sic] during the expansion of the universe and was therefore the same in the early, hot universe. When the universe was very hot, all particles were relativistic, and g∗S ~ 102. Therefore η ~ g∗SnB/s ~ 10−8, and assuming there were about as many baryons as antibaryons as photons (nb ∼ n¯b ∼ nγ), this gives (nb − n¯b )/nb ~ 10−8. Now assume that all the baryons were quarks, i.e. no nucleons had been formed yet, and we can conclude that for every 100 million antiquarks there were roughly 100 million and 1 quark. A tiny asymmetry but with important consequences!
![]() | This
edit request to
Big Bang has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the section on History - Development, there is a line referring to the accelerating expansion of the universe, ending with the "[citation needed]" statement. Here is the text fragment: Cosmologists now have fairly precise and accurate measurements of many of the parameters of the Big Bang model, and have made the unexpected discovery that the expansion of the universe appears to be accelerating.[citation needed] I propose adding the citation:
![]() | This
edit request to
Big Bang has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The Big Bang Is not formed by an sigularity but formed when one Ununoctium atom and its anti paricle blasted and the annihalte so these annahilation expanded the universe. Sanjay007123456 ( talk) 00:35, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
According to most physicists the term "precosmic state" is wrong (even that state is one period of the cosmic state/wavefunctional evolution of the universe), because space-time pre-existed (see: Stephen Hawking) necessarily (even in a different state in some theories).
The common theory is that our surrounding causal subluminal sphere was a spot (but not of exactly zero volume), and the whole spacetime/universe was still infinite (actually potentially infinite for each observer as it is now; because there is no IMMEDIATE causal connection outside each arbitrary observer's causal sphere [but there is some relay of causality; not only the central region exists in the causal spheres]) but denser.
![]() | This
edit request to
Big Bang has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the part "Hubble law and expansion of space", it is said that D is the comoving distance and that it varies as the universe expands (precisely "The theory requires the relation {\displaystyle v=HD}{\displaystyle v=HD} to hold at all times, where {\displaystyle D}D is the comoving distance"), but this is inconsistent with the definition of comoving distance, which by definition does not vary with the expansion. Also, following "Cosmology" from Weinberg, one has v = H*l, where l is this proper distance, since from FLRW metric, one can consider a fixed time so that proper distance is given by l = a(t)*ksi, where a(t) is the scale factor and ksi the comoving distance. When time-differentiated, it yields the above formula, namely v = H*l, q.e.d. 128.179.161.200 ( talk) 08:32, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Big Bang has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
168.212.126.191 ( talk) 17:37, 14 October 2021 (UTC)The Big Bang Theory is the leading explanation about how the universe began. At its simplest, it says the universe as we know it started with an infinitely hot, infinitely dense singularity, then inflated — first at unimaginable speed, and then at a more measurable rate — over the next 13.8 billion years to the cosmos that we know today.
Under "Features of the Model" in the "Expansion of Space" section, there's an unnecessary comma in this sentence:
In this coordinate system, the grid expands along with the universe, and objects that are moving only because of the expansion of the universe, remain at fixed points on the grid.
The third comma is not needed; I'm pretty sure it's ungrammatical. Does-she-talk ( talk) 22:44, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Under timeline, then under cooling we have this phrasing : -- The temperature was now no longer high enough to create new proton–antiproton pairs (similarly for neutrons–antineutrons), so a mass annihilation immediately followed, leaving just one in 108 of the original matter particles and none of their antiparticles.
This should be two sentences, and these parenthes are not needed. Could this be replaced with something like: -- The temperature was no longer high enough to create either new proton–antiproton or neutrons–antineutrons pairs. A mass annihilation immediately followed, leaving just one in 108 of the original matter particles and none of their antiparticles. 107.202.75.102 ( talk) 21:05, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Big Bang has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
CMB in the third paragraph should hyperlink to /info/en/?search=Cosmic_microwave_background 2A01:4C8:1562:EEC9:F93E:54AE:BCA1:70A9 ( talk) 12:39, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
There is this recent theory called Big Wave Theory (many articles online) that is not contemplated on the Ultimate Fate of the Universe section of this article. Was it left out for some reason? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Luckylemming ( talk • contribs) 17:15, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
The lead graphic is a misleading introductory visualisation of universe expansion. Please see my critique here; https://commons.wikimedia.org/?title=File_talk:CMB_Timeline300_no_WMAP.jpg#Graphical_representation_of_the_expansion_of_the_universe Richardbrucebaxter ( talk) 00:58, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
I see some issues with the lead, which is supposed to be "introduction to the article and a summary of its most important contents". First, there is no mention of baryon asymmetry, which is why we're even here to talk about it. It talks about dark matter and dark energy, but never mentions that they are unexplained by the theory. In fact, I'm not clear why we need most of the third paragraph. Finally, it spends an entire paragraph talking about big bang vs. steady state theory, which actually forms a pretty minor part of the article. Hence, I think it needs a rewrite to better reflect the article content. Thanks. Praemonitus ( talk) 02:33, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
precosmic state (religion) vs precosmic state (philosophy) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:2149:8B03:1000:50F8:F9A8:F91F:690E ( talk) 05:51, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect
Big Bang Theory and has thus listed it
for discussion. This discussion will occur at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 May 6#Big Bang Theory until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.
BilledMammal (
talk)
11:56, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
Why is the big bang described as "physical theory" instead of just "theory"? Seems confusing! BigBroster ( talk) 01:06, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Big Bang has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
"Big Bang Bogan" youtube channel link ( https://www.youtube.com/@BigBangBogan), was created based on the inspiration from Big Bang theory Santhanakrishnan25 ( talk) 14:22, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
With recent discoveries from the James Webb Telescope drawing attention to this topic, this Wikipedia article is apparently creating some confusion to readers conflating "Big Bang" with three different hypotheses: the initial singularity, the expanding universe, and a particular model for the expansion of the universe. One expert better describes this article's issues that need to be addressed: https://nautil.us/the-trouble-with-the-big-bang-238547. -- MPerel 16:34, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
I suggest we update article on recent findings by JWST and followed studies and "rethinkings" of the Big Bang theory. [5] [6] [7] AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 07:25, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
See also Galaxies in the Early Universe AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 07:28, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
Hello, I noticed the first mention of the "FLRW model" does not link to an existing Wikipedia article that further expands on the first use of this acronym, and I believe that it would be a helpful addition for context. OverwhelmingOdds ( talk) 00:01, 26 January 2024 (UTC)