Talk:Big Bang

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

Template:WP1.0

Big Bang = Religion

Let's discuss the article, not the Big Bang.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The big bang is really fake, and nothing more. The only difference between the big bang theory and other religions is that this one is government funded... I personaly do not believe in the theory, but like other religions, I have no problem in other people believing. The only thing that angers me is that it is used in modern science books. There is no definate, or even moderately close evidence that proves that this is how the universe was truly formed, whereas when I think of science, I think of information based on facts. I think you may have a misunderstanding of what "theory" means in the scientific context. A scientific theory is an explanation that has been throughly tested and is supported by the currently available scientific evidence. If you wish to read about the scientific evidence supporting the Big Bang model you will find a good deal of it on this or related pages. Please remember that this talk page is for discussing improving Wikipedia's page on the Big Bang model, not for debating the merits of the theory. Coffeeassured (talk) 02:00, 1 June 2008 (UTC) I would like to add that in no way is the Big Bang religion, because it is not a belief system about the supernatural. 203.70.126.194 (talk) 16:02, 4 August 2008 (UTC) So much for this not being a talk page... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.240.255.224 (talk) 01:09, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Is this sentence at all scientific?

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

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

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

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

Wow!! I am sure you do not have any contact with scientists that work in this field. By no means they consider any Big Bang theory as a fact. One must not confuse the actual collected data with the inferences made while interpreting them. They know they are making unverified (although reasonable) premises and adjusting lots of contradictory data so as to fit in the theories, by using ad-hoc hypothesis (this is very common in Science). Even the event called "Big Bang" can't be considered as a fact because this is the result of a conclusion based on data interpretation (which is subject to premises, inferences, etc.), not a direct observation (of course) (an example of a more direct observation that IS a fact is the red-shift of light) — EPLeite 15:33, 16 July 2008 (UTC).

You're right, I don't; my cosmology education comes more from Wikipedia than anywhere else. If you don't want to take my word for what previous discussion was like, you could review the archives here (find the word "Archives" near the top of this page), or you could let the scientists here speak for themselves; I'm only trying to summarize that information. But I'm glad to see you're now making assertions about what "scientists that work in this field" think, not about what we should think. That's a beginning. Art LaPella (talk) 20:52, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

We have Big Bang theories. These are theories, therefore, not "facts". It may be based in a collection of facts plus logical reasoning and so forth, but there is no such thing like "Big Bang as a fact". Fact is something you get from a "direct" observation (no trully direct observation can occur, that is the reason for the quotation marks). One could consider the event called "Big Bang" as a fact, but that is just inappropriate, because this is just an infered hypothesis to explain lots of data, after many assumptions and intermediate inferences have been made. I think most of the people who have the tendency to call Big Bang a "fact" is atheists to try to strengthen their positions when discussing the Universe with religious people. I am an atheist myself, but I don't need to lie just to "win" a debate. (EPLeite 03:50, 4 August 2008 (UTC)) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Epleite (talk • contribs)

You're still criticizing my statement that "leading scientists ... pretty much do consider [the Big Bang] a fact." According to philosophical skepticism there are no facts, which would invalidate my summary but not the article, which doesn't use the word "fact" to describe the Big Bang anyway. The right question is, does the article overstate the confidence of leading scientists (not just us) in the Big Bang? Art LaPella (talk) 05:22, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I dont like the idea that the Big Bang theory provides for the creation of both Electrically charged "quarks" and then for electrically charged "electrons/positrons" and then goes on to the theory that the unit of electric charge is made up of the relative charge relationship between a plus or minus charged electron/proton and the sum of the charges on 3 quarks. Sounds like mathematical manipulations to me. WFPMWFPM (talk) 01:47, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Mathematical manipulations are very useful in other branches of science, for calculating satellite orbits for instance, so I probably misunderstand the objection. However, you have neither proposed a change to the article nor cited leading scientists who agree with you, so did you notice the big hand at the top of the page? Art LaPella (talk) 05:00, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

problem with bigbang

According to theories of rahul soor the universe originate from a nodal area. Each and every point inside nidal area will communicate with all other points creating quantum wave density.In ayurveda nodal area is termed as AVYAKT. Avyakt and nodal area

Ancient ayurveda believe that the present universe is originated from avyakt. The avyakt term is formed from the combination of two different words a + vayakt which when combines toughter indicates something which doesn’t be received by our five sense organs. The nodal area is exactly analogous to ancient avyakt. Nodal area is an area were there no particle but only n information of null ness actually vaykt and nodal area were the basic platform of universe the platform on which the universe exist ,hence through information laws and properties we can understand how universe take birth. time and universe

Time and universe were mutually depended on each other to know the origin of one you must know to the origin of other. The theory mentioned in this paper is based upon the information carried by quantum waves. Every thing which exists must have its origin and all such origination require information. Every event has its own information .this information transit through quantum wave medium. Informative waves when swept out time of that particle manifested. Present universe originated from a nodal area, due to an internal communication setup of nodal area quantum wave density created which further results for formation of particles. The interaction of information was responsible for the origin of the known space-time. Electron is a wave structure made by inward and outward wave. To understand this we have to go through the properties of quantum waves. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rahulsoor india (talk • contribs) 08:02, 11 July 2008 (UTC) SEND BY RAHUL ASHOK SOOR ,INDIA, —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rahulsoor india (talk • contribs) 08:05, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Please see the big red hand at the top of this page - this page is for discussing the article - not your theories of how the universe began. There are other more appropriate pages for your contributions.PhySusie (talk) 13:33, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Sci Am News Scan article placement

This is a request to consider a source and some additional content into this article, or suggest an alternative article as more appropriate.

First, the citation (I have a paper copy):

• Choi, Charles Q. (September 2007), "New Beginnings: Ideas for a time before the big bang—which might be testable", Scientific American, vol. 297, no. 4, Scientific American, Inc. (published October 2007), pp. 26–29, retrieved 2008-08-08 Note: on-line version provides only first two paragraphs at no charge

This article provides a very concise history of major Big Bang-related theories; therefore, it could appear in the 'Further reading' section.

This article also provides awareness-level information on two sets of theories emerging in the months preceding September 2007, both of which were purported to be alternatives to inflation-involved theories. This could be represented as either a single bullet-line or two bullet-lines in the section Big Bang#Speculative physics beyond the Big Bang.

Thanks for considering this in terms of its suitability for inclusion; if the consensus is to, yes, give it a go, I will add the material as described for further consideration.

--User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:52, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Hmm... I haven't looked at the full article, but the short preview is packed with enough errors that I'm leery of using this as a source:

• According to conventional big bang thinking, the universe emerged from a point of infinite energy and density, a singularity where the laws of physics break down—singularities are where theories break down, not where the universe breaks down. Maybe people took the singularity seriously in the early days, I'm not sure, but the modern thinking is that it means we need new physics to understand the early universe. See Age_of_the_universe#Explanation.
• The universe then underwent "inflation," briefly expanding much faster than the speed of light—first, inflation isn't "expansion faster than light"; depending on how you define it, faster-than-light expansion either happens in all eras or doesn't happen at all. Second, this sentence implies that inflation happened after the initial singularity in the standard big bang model, which is wrong. Inflation is what happens instead of the singularity. It's the new physics.
• inflation solved a number of puzzles, including why spacetime is "flat," whereby light commonly travels in straight, not warped, lines—spacetime is not flat, and inflation obviously doesn't predict that it is. Space in any given cosmological era is flat when considered as a 3D manifold, and inflation does predict/explain that. This is more than just a typo because light doesn't travel within the flat spacelike surfaces, so their flatness alone can't explain why light travels in straight lines (to the extent that it does so at all).

I probably couldn't tell you whether the description of the new cosmologies is accurate even if I had the full article, but it's clear that Choi doesn't understand cosmology and I wouldn't trust anything he wrote on the subject. I'm frustrated that this was published two years after Misconceptions about the Big Bang. Apparently the SciAm editors didn't learn anything from that article. -- BenRG (talk) 10:45, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

File Type: Unknown

Please convert the Timeline, Overview of the Big Bang graphic to a file type recognizable by Windows, which is used by more than 95% of all computer users worldwide. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.177.13.232 (talk) 11:17, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't know anything about image file types, but both graphics work on my Windows (Windows XP version 5.1, Flock browser). Did you mean the graphical timeline link at the start of Big Bang#Timeline of the Big Bang, or the Hubble Ultra Deep Field picture? Art LaPella (talk) 20:31, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Big Bang Theory Assumptions

Section 2.2 should begin with the primary assumption, that the cosmological redshift is due to a Doppler effect caused by a hypothesized expansion of space. Carl Sagan clearly states in his books that the Big Bang theory absolutely depends on this hypothetical assumption. Sagan expresses his scepticism of the assumption in his book Cosmos pages 208-211. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.186.213.96 (talk • contribs) 03:44, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Cosmos was published in 1980, and an enormous amount of new astronomical data has become available since then. The alternatives Sagan discussed have been ruled out by the new data. Sagan was right to be skeptical 30 years ago, but he wouldn't be skeptical now.

It's somewhat ambiguous what the "assumptions" of a theory are; generally you can develop the same theory from many different starting points. The only unambiguous thing about a theory is its predictions. It follows from the assumptions listed in section 2.2 (general relativity and quantum mechanics and the cosmological principle) that the redshift is due to recession of the galaxies (or, equivalently, expansion of space). -- BenRG (talk) 11:18, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Carl Sagan's criticisms are every bit as valid today as 30 years ago, see American Scientist article of Sept 2007 by Prof. Michael J. Disney Modern Cosmology: Science or Folktale?, there Prof. Disney of Cardiff University writes that the Big Bang crumbles like a house of cards if the cosmological redshift can be shown to be explained by other than the hypothesis of expansion of space. This absolutely belongs at the very beginning of Section 2.2 as the primary assumption. 72.186.213.96 (talk) 20:03, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the cosmological redshift is not caused by the Doppler Effect but is a natural feature of a GR-metric that has an expanding scale-factor. The scale factor originates from other more fundamental assumptions. One need not assume anything about the "cause" of the redshift: even if there was no light emanating from distant objects and there was no observed redshift-distance relations, the Big Bang theory would still hold. It is therefore not manifestly dependent on the assumption of a redshift mechanism. Indeed, the Big Bang theory itself only provides an explanation for the observed redshift-distance relation. It is not dependent on it any more than, for example, quantum mechanics is dependent on discrete spectral lines being associated with the differences in energy levels in atoms. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:33, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

That is pure double-talk nonsense. You have presented a fundamental assumption yourself, that the redshift is caused by a GR-metric scale factor, which is circular reasoning, a tautology, which is based on your additional assumption that the big bang is true. Circular reasoning par excellence. The fact is, no one knows what causes the redshift - the big bang theory is based on the primary assumption that it is caused by an expansion of space - this Expansion hypothesis is indeed the primary fundamental assumption of the big bang theory, and it absolutely belongs at the very beginning of Section 2.2 14:02, 18 September 2008 (UTC)72.186.213.96 (talk).

The worst thing about this section 2.2 is that it completely ignores the first and foremost assumption, that the cosmological redshift is caused by an expansion of space. Should this assumption prove untrue, the entire edifice collapses, says Dr. Michael J. Disney in American Scientist of September 2007 pages 383-385. This source should there be cited in section 2.2. http://www.americanscientist.org/issues/pub/modern-cosmology-science-or-folktale/1 72.186.213.96 (talk) 20:32, 25 September 2008 (UTC).

Sorry, your interpretation of your single source is not as reliable as the plethora of sources and interpretations that say the opposite of what you say. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:32, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Dr. Michael Disney is Professor Emeritus of Astrophysics at Cardiff University, here published in a top journal. It is Wikipedia's policy to accept such top sources. It must not be simply ignored by Wikipedia. It puts the state of the big bang theory into perspective for Wikipedia readers. Dr.Disney calls the expansion of space a hypothesis. - and hypothesis means assumption, his published source therefore belonging in section 2.2 as a proper reference. 72.186.213.96 (talk) 21:58, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

We don't write Wikipedia articles based on the wording (and self-admittedly tiny minority opinion) of a single professor. Also, far from being a "top journal" American Scientist is not peer-reviewed. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:51, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism

Anyone want to remove the vandalism in the opening part of the page that says "big Bang is nothing but bullshit"? Doesn't really seem encyclopaedic to me, or at the very least it is OR. Gavintaig (talk) 12:52, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I searched for that phrase in the article, and it isn't there, nor was it there at the time of the post above, 12:52 9 September. I didn't find anything like that phrase either. But if you find something that you are sure is vandalism, you can remove it, and it isn't much harder than posting here. See Wikipedia:Revert for more details. Art LaPella (talk) 22:17, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

At the time the article was semi-protected, and the vandalism was there. I just checked the history and couldn't find it either, very strange. I assure you that it was there, why else would I have posted? Gavintaig (talk) 07:05, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I think I see what happened. The vandalism you saw was actually vandalism of Template:Physical cosmology, which is included in the Big Bang article, but which has a separate revision history, and so now that the vandalism has been reverted, there's no evidence left here that it was ever there in the first place. Scog (talk) 13:01, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

All scientific evidence?

To proclaim that the big bang is in support of all scientific evidence would be falsified information. Any record of complexity in our natural environment is strong evidence to disprove this Theory, for that is all that it is. An educated guess about the formation of the world as we know it. let me explain. The big bang theory is described as an occurance in which there is absolutely nothing in existance, no time, no matter, no energy. Then suddenly there is a tremendous explosion of compressed particles that did not previously exist. Which would be a direct contridiction to one of the very basic rules of phisics: "matter cannot be created nor destroyed." providing scientific evidence that disproves such a theory. Now let us assume that this could happen anyway, that there was a big bang. A trumendous explosion of matter that spread across millions if not billions of light years apart. This explosion, or bang, or whatever you want to call it is in essence a creation of chaos. life, beauty, matter, and every natural thing in this world is never created by chaos. a bang is a disruption and killer of life, matter, and nature. Not a creator of one, and I can garentee that no explosion can ever result in anything but destruction. As for the creation of a world, one that can sustain life, it is scientifically impossibe for a world to meet the exact specifications needed to sustain life randomly. What with the exact placement the earth has to be as compared to the sun, the spin of the earth at the precise speed and angle to provide a sustainable gravitational pull, and the impossibly complex shielding that the autmosphere protects us from numerous dangers that would instantly kill all life on this planet if one small factor is off. These complications and any that are observed in this world disprove with trumendous force that our world, our planet was created by accident. It would be simpler to explain that the Mona Lisa was an explosion of compressed paint and paper.

by dck1990 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dck1990 (talk • contribs) 18:50, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't want to sound rude, but by your post, it's very clear that you didn't even bother to read more than the first few sentences of the article. Read it, and then post your more educated dispute not here, but somewhere else because this talk page is for improving the article, not for disputing the validity of the big bang. I would also suggest that you look up the scientific definition of the word "theory", which is not the same as you seem to be using it. Also check up on quantum mechanics - matter does actually spontaneously come into existence all the time.Farsight001 (talk) 07:56, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

We report what those with authority in the area believe, so in this case we report scientific consensus. If you'd like to change what's written here try and change their minds, not ours.--Serviam (talk) 18:02, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Just a little clarification here. If someone reads something in the article and thinks it may be a lot of baloney, discussing that point is an attempt to improve the article. I guess what you mean to say is, "Don't question the experts. You are just too stupid to understand, and you are clogging up the discussion pages with useless commentary." Personally, I think you are wrong. Questioning what is being written does help improve the article. Perhaps you know what you are saying, but you say it badly. Hearing an objection may aid you in writing more clearly. On the other hand, it is very possible that you don't know what you are talking about at all. In which case, please stop regurgitating drivel into this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.94.176.22 (talk) 01:34, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

We do indeed mean to say "Don't question the experts – just report what experts think". For more explanation, please notice the big hand at the top of this page. By the way, I am definitely not an expert on this subject. Art LaPella (talk) 02:26, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Ah! You caught me being sloppy in my use of language. I meant you when I said expert. If a non-expert says that Einstein didn't know what he was talking about, that statement would have no place in this discussion unless there were experts who could be quoted, etc. Yes I agree with that. My complaint is that this article apparently misquotes, paraphrases badly, and makes huge jumps in logic. So, If Einstein says that the Big Bang Theory is now proved, quote Einstein. Give the context of the quote too. Or quote Stephan Hawking, etc. I tried to add to the article, perhaps badly myself. But rather than trying to understand my complaint with the current wording, my revisions were simply reverted. So, I am trying to make my points here in the discussion. If someone has something to say, try to understand it. Don't just delete it. The Big Bang Theory may be the theory de jour, but it is still a theory. Hawking for example seems to give a little caveat when he talks about the Big Bang theory being universally excepted. Say that experts think this theory explains more of the empirical phenomena that has been observed and hypothesized. And please differentiate between the observed universe and the Universe meaning all there is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.94.176.22 (talk) 03:50, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not that kind of expert either – my usual contributions are spelling, grammar, and re-explaining repetitive issues like the big hand. So if I misinterpreted what you meant, it's because you seemed to be defending Dck1990, whose post can be summarized as intelligent design, not a debate over what Hawking believes. Art LaPella (talk) 06:11, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I am not defending intelligent design, but Dck1990 does make a valid point. That is, Big Bang is a theory. This article needs to make that clear. Don't quote an expert and leave out his or her little caveat. That is my point. If you weren't so quick to dismiss Dck1990 as a fanatical cultist, you might actually try to reread the article to see his points. For example, Hawking says: "Since events before the Big Bang have no observational consequences, one may as well cut them out of the theory, and say that time began at the Big Bang." See? Theory.

BTW, speaking of cultists, you might want to add that Lemaître was a Christian Priest. I think the article should have that and not just leave it to the Lemaître link. Just say Father George Lemaître, or his reverence, or whatever the proper title is. and leave it at that. I mean, I think it is important to show that this theory springs from and is excepted by the Catholic Church. That is a fact. It might also mention that the Pope has stated that the kind of experiment being done by the Hadrian Collider to recreate the act of creation should never be done.

Personally, I don't believe that the Pope is God's voice on earth, but enough people do that it makes his expert opinion in matters of metaphysics important.

So, finally, please read comments critically and don't just rubber stamp with the big hand, POV, or original research. That gets old fast, and may keep valuable contributors away. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.94.176.22 (talk) 08:51, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Big Bang

If you think that the various aspects of the universe came into existence from a "Bang" of none existing particles is absurd!! Next you will try to tell me that a house is made up of wood and nails that just magically appeared and formed a house. you can't make something out of nothing, Energy is neither gained nor destroyed: it is transferred. You may ask how did the house get their? It's simple-someone created it...just like God, the one and only, who created the galaxies and everything in-between. Everything has a creator. You don't have to be a genius to figure it out. If you want to believe the "Big Bang" I hope that you don't, but if you do you will be spending eternity in Hell. Read the Bible...the truth, the word that God provided for his children so that we can learn to live for him and do his will. It's your choice...I just gave you the information, you have to decide if you will accept the truth, or keep living the same old lie. The Bible says every knee shall bow and every tongue confess. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.163.77.24 (talk) 00:49, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Did you notice the red octagon with a hand in it, at the top of this page? Your Christian witness might improve if you at least recognized the hand. Art LaPella (talk) 01:20, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

It's not visible in the first screen of text in my browser. I moved it up a bit. -- BenRG (talk) 01:36, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

We report what the scientific community thinks, if you want to change what they think take it up with them not us. On an unrelated note, if you believe there is a God and there is evidence for a big bang, isn't it reasonable for you to assume that God must have created the big bang? Just a thought--Serviam (talk) 17:29, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Speculative physics beyond the Big Bang

It looks like this section is talking about attempts to avoid the singularity (last sentence of 1st paragraph). Therefore, it seems that the following excepts from (http://www.bethinking.org/science-christianity/advanced/beyond-the-big-bang.htm) are relevant to each of the three bullet points in this section.

• models including the Hartle-Hawking no-boundary condition in which the whole of space-time is finite; the Big Bang does represent the limit of time, but without the need for a singularity.[52]

The Hartle-Hawking model simply declines to re-convert to real numbers. If we do, then the singularity re--appears. Hawking admits, ‘Only if we could picture the universe in terms of imaginary time would there be no singularities . . . When one goes back to the real time in which we live, however, there will still appear to be singularities’ (Hawking 1988: 138-9).

Hawking means to include himself when he asserts that ‘almost everyone now believes that the universe, and time itself, had a beginning at the Big Bang’ (Hawking and Penrose 1996: 20).

• brane cosmology models[53] in which inflation is due to the movement of branes in string theory; the pre-big bang model; the ekpyrotic model, in which the Big Bang is the result of a collision between branes; and the cyclic model, a variant of the ekpyrotic model in which collisions occur periodically.[54][55][56]

In September of 2001 Borde and Vilenkin, in cooperation with Alan Guth, were able to generalize their earlier results on inflationary models in such a way to extend their conclusion to other models. Specifically, they note, ‘Our argument can be straightforwardly extended to cosmology in higher dimensions,’ specifically brane--cosmology. According to Vilenkin, ‘It follows from our theorem that the cyclic universe is past--incomplete’, that is to say, the need for an initial singularity has not been eliminated. Therefore, such a universe cannot be past-eternal.

• chaotic inflation, in which inflation events start here and there in a random quantum-gravity foam, each leading to a bubble universe expanding from its own big bang.[57]

In 1994, however, Arvind Borde and Alexander Vilenkin showed that a universe eternally inflating toward the future cannot be geodesically complete in the past, that is to say, there must have existed at some point in the indefinite past an initial singularity. They write,

A model in which the inflationary phase has no end . . . naturally leads to this question: Can this model also be extended to the infinite past, avoiding in this way the problem of the initial singularity?

. . . this is in fact not possible in future--eternal inflationary spacetimes as long as they obey some reasonable physical conditions: such models must necessarily possess initial singularities.

. . . the fact that inflationary spacetimes are past incomplete forces one to address the question of what, if anything, came before (Borde and Vilenkin 1994: 3305, 3307).

In his response, Linde concurs with the conclusion of Borde and Vilenkin: there must have been a Big Bang singularity at some point in the past (Linde, A, Linde, D. and Mezhlumian 1994). Therfore, inflationary models, like their predecessors, failed to avert the beginning predicted by the Standard Model.

I think there are good references above that show that the picture painted in the article is incorrect. I'd like to hear other opinions before I make any edits, however, as this would entail a large change the section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Motocop (talk • contribs) 20:02, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

You're not using a very good cite for your work. In particular, Christian Apologetics do not belong on the Big Bang page. William Lane Craig is not even close to a reliable source on this subject. Sorry. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:57, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

ScienceApologist is right, but there are plenty of citations here to more reliable people like Hawking and Guth, so I'll try to comment on that.

• "When one goes back to the real time in which we live, however, there will still appear to be singularities"—I think what Hawking meant is that the singularities are only apparent, i.e. not real. "Real" and "imaginary" time derive their names from real and imaginary numbers, not reality and fantasy.
• "almost everyone now believes that the universe, and time itself, had a beginning at the Big Bang"—this is not true; in fact I think a significant majority of cosmologists would disagree with that statement. A search for the quote turns up nothing but religious sites, making me wonder if it's even genuine. If it is genuine it must have been taken out of context. (Or maybe it was true in 1996 and opinion has shifted since then? I'm not actually sure.)
• "In 1994, Arvind Borde and Alexander Vilenkin showed that a universe eternally inflating toward the future cannot be geodesically complete in the past"—apparently referring to a predecessor of this paper. I think the paper is fine (I assume it's fine or Guth wouldn't have put his name on it), but one of their key assumptions is that the average expansion rate in the past is positive, and (as they mention on the last page) there are singularity-free models that violate that assumption. I can't comment on the brane-cosmology stuff.
• Most importantly, though, these models don't have a Big Bang singularity even if they have an initial singularity of some other kind.

-- BenRG (talk) 22:29, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick replies. For the record (whatever that means) I also agree that William Lane Craig is not a good source for this, however I only include the article because that's where I found the other references and thought it would be useful to the discussion here on the talk page if we all had access to the same sources of info.

• Actually I think the quote shows that Hawking meant the opposite, that the singularity is real or perhaps that the singularity only "vanishes" if we look at it in terms of a mathematical construct (the positivist position). I think that is more readily apparent by this quote from Hawking ‘I’m a positivist . . . I don’t demand that a theory correspond to reality because I don’t know what it is’ (Hawking and Penrose 1996: 121). Or ‘I take the positivist view point that a physical theory is just a mathematical model and that it is meaningless to ask whether it corresponds to reality’.(Hawking and Penrose 1996: 4)
• The quote is found in Nature of Space and Time, Hawking and Penrose, pg 20, which conveniently (or inconveniently), the preview for it stops at page 17, but I'm guessing it's not a made up quote either. But either way the previous Hawking quote is enough to show that the Hartle-Hawking model is not intended to reflect reality, as such.
• I looked at the paper and it says this

  Our argument can be straightforwardly extended to cosmology in higher dimensions. For example, in the model of Ref. [15] brane worlds are created in collisions of bubbles nucleating in an inflating higher-dimensional bulk spacetime. Our analysis implies that the inflating bulk cannot be past-complete.

And they go on to talk about other models that they were able to invalidate, but I didn't see the reference to any that they were not able to invalidate. I probably just missed it, but either way, it does seem to apply the the second bullet of the article in reference to brane cosmology.

• If it is true that they have a singularity, but don't have a Big Bang singularity, then I think it's ok to point that out in the article too. The article looks like it is talking about avoiding a singularity completely, so I just was providing some sources that seem to contradict the article. I mean, in the interest of full disclosure, I do want there to be a singularity, but I recognize that my personal desires are completely immaterial to wikipedia's goal of accurately reporting the scientific consensus. Then having said that, I think that the references I provided are valuable and do seem to point to a different conclusion than the article in regards to the current scientific consensus. Motocop (talk) 13:15, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

1. Hartle-Hawking model is an inflation alternative that received notable fame because of two things: 1) It has Hawking's name attached to it, and 2) it avoids a singularity in a way similar to the de-Sitter waist/cap avoidance of a singularity when it is matched to a Schwarzschild solution. WLC thinks that because Hawking used imaginary numbers that his solution is "unphysical". This only evinces the ignorance of WLC. The "imaginary time" used is simply another way of expressing how the mathematics can consistently work while avoiding a singularity in 3D+1 spacetime. Whether other "topological defects" occur or not is entirely too much for inclusion on a page about the Big Bang.
2. The "existence of an initial singularity in the past" exercise is academic and misses the point of eternal inflation. Given "infinity" a lot of weird things happen. That's all they're saying. For WLC to claim that this somehow "regains" an ab initio point is like someone who doesn't believe in an infinite universe using the idea that at some point in an infinite universe everything that is possible to happen will happen and therefore a finite universe will happen and the universe is finite. Avoiding this kind of logical mindtrap is difficult, but it certainly doesn't belong on this page.

I submit that your proposed additions are actually not based in the best understanding of the mathematics or the theoretics of these proposals.

ScienceApologist (talk) 14:11, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I do regret that I gave a link to the christian article as I recognize from your couple posts that you don't like WLC, which I think is just fine, but I never quoted WLC and it seems like you would need to deal with the sources that I actually did quote. Your first point highlights what I quoted Hawking as saying, namely, that his model is a useful tool for making predictions, not that it corresponds to reality. You're right when you say that I don't have the best understanding of these theories (I am not an expert which is why I have quoted the experts). Having said that, I think I have understood Hawking correctly when he says, "... a physical theory is just a mathematical model and that it is meaningless to ask whether it corresponds to reality." However, if you feel really strongly that we shouldn't bring that up in the article, then I'd like to hear some other opinions, but if I'm in the minority I'll back off the Hawking bullet point. Are the other two ok?

Motocop (talk) 12:43, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by the "other two" bullet points. I haven't really found anything that you are arguing for to be worthy of inclusion here. ScienceApologist (talk) 13:45, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Re-read my first and second posts and you'll see that I'm providing additional source information for the three bullet points in the article. You seem to have been objecting to alterting the first bullet but haven't said anything about the other two. In the second bullet regarding brane cosmology, it appears that the theories have been tested and falsified (see sources). Similarly the third point regarding chaotic inflation has been falsified according to the sources I referenced. I would disagree that additional scientific research on this field is not worthy of inclusion to wikipedia. I get the feeling that you're against anything I add just because I referenced an article by William Lane Craig ... look, I don't give a rip about that guy one way or the other, but the references seem pretty straightforward. Motocop (talk) 14:45, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I already addressed the initial singularity issues and pointed out that such arguments are not relevant to this particular page. As for "chaotic inflation being falsified", I see no indication of this anywhere in the sources you cite. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:46, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Moreover, there seems to be a misconception about whether an "initial singularity" "truly" exists. In the most basic epistemological way, an initial singularity does not exist in the way it is conceived in our current models simply because singularities are physical paradoxes. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:48, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

The references are certainly valid and relevant as they provide more recent findings than those referenced in the article. If you don't like the idea, I'd encourage you to take it up with Hawking, Arvind Borde, Alexander Vilenkin, Linde, etc. as they seem to disagree with you. Motocop (talk) 16:06, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

As it happens, I just had a seminar with Arvind the other day. I can assure you he would NOT agree with your attempted (re)interpretations of his work. What I'm saying is the way his work is supposed to be interpreted. What you are saying is the way William Lane Craig interprets their work. Sorry. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:29, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I'll just say this one more time then I'm done responding to you on this. I suggest you pick up the paper he authored with Guth and Vilenkin, found here. Look at the references I provided and how they relate to what is in the article. I think it's clear that the newer references add relvant information to the article, even if it's just as footnotes. Motocop (talk) 17:00, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Let's try a different tack. Try adding points to the article on cosmic inflation. Then, if it looks like this article is contradicting what ends up showing up there, we'll change what we have here. ScienceApologist (talk) 17:07, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be better if instead of the cosmic inflation article, I try adding points to the Hartle-Hawking state, Chaotic inflation, Brane cosmology, and Ekpyrotic articles? Motocop (talk) 17:20, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Re this whole discussion, I think I should point out that a singularity and a beginning of time are totally different things. Nobody likes singularities and nobody "believes in" them, because they're just places where the theory breaks down. A theory can have singularities without having a beginning of time (like the Landau pole of the particle physics Standard Model) or it can have a beginning of time without a singularity (like the Hartle-Hawking instanton). Physicists have no particular preference for or against theories with a beginning of time, but theories that are nonsingular at the Big Bang are better than theories that aren't. Some such theories have been shown to be singular elsewhere, and that's unfortunate, but they might still have something useful to say in the regimes where they're nonsingular. I assume you don't care one way or the other about singularities, you just want a theory with a beginning of time because you believe that to be a necessary consequence of your religious beliefs (but see below). In that case you should have no objection to a section about theories that try to avoid the Big Bang singularity, particularly since some of them (like Hartle-Hawking) still have a beginning of time.

Also, I'd like to encourage you to rethink your idea that "creation" of the universe must be associated with an earliest time. If there's one thing we've learned from general relativity it's that time is intrinsic to the universe, not something external in which the universe evolves. The law of cause and effect is a law of physics. The idea that there was a time "before the universe existed" is logically incoherent. That doesn't mean that there was no earliest time—it means that, if there was, it really was the earliest time! To get a little more concrete, the Borde, Guth and Vilenkin paper that I linked above mentions a singularity-free eternal inflation cosmology of Aguirre and Gratton. If they're talking about the same idea I'm thinking of, this is a model where entropy is minimized at the "waist" of a de Sitter space and increases both into the past and into the future. Because the perceptual arrow of time derives from the thermodynamic arrow of time, we see the universe as shrinking in our "past" regardless of which half of it we're in. Can you reconcile your religious beliefs with a model like that, which has a thermodynamic beginning of sorts but no endpoint of spacetime where God can touch His Sistine-Chapel finger to start things off?

Incidentally, Hawking's part of The Nature of Space and Time is available online, and he does baldly say (top of page 15) that almost everyone thinks that time began at the Big Bang. Of course, Hawking was at that time promoting his instanton theory in which time does begin at the Big Bang, but it didn't (and still doesn't) have nearly enough support from other cosmologists to justify a statement like that, so I remain mystified. I should also say that I'm strongly opposed to the cherry-picking of quotes that Craig seems to be engaged in here. It's not generally hard to find quotes from prominent scientists seemingly in opposition to their own work, because part of the culture of science is being your own harshest critic and recognizing that your pet ideas may turn out to be totally wrong. When someone says "the recent work of Grackle and Floop may invalidate our work," it doesn't mean they think it does invalidate it, it's just a form of full disclosure. I think using quotes like this as evidence that the theory is in trouble is dishonest and potentially harmful to science in the long term (if it discourages scientists from expressing their doubts). -- BenRG (talk) 17:41, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I'll let this drop. If you all think something should be added or changed based on the provided references (unlikely), I'll leave it to you.Motocop (talk) 18:37, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Opening Sentence

The opening sentence of this article currently reads:

The Big Bang is the cosmological model of the universe that is best supported by all lines of scientific evidence and observation.

This appears to be both incorrect and misleading. While I haven't kept up with the science too heavily, I recall recent findings that raised serious questions about the theory (e.g., Nov 2007 Wired article, findings by Gerrit Verschuur). I propose a less assertive opening statement be used, such as replacing "all" with "most" or some such. I hope a career physicist, cosmologists, astronomer, or similar who has followed these findings can comment. At a minimum, the findings should be mentioned in the article. Daniel Santos (talk) 15:53, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Wired is not a reliable source for presenting scientific findings. The overwhelming weight of the sources indicate that the opening sentence is correct and approriate. ScienceApologist (talk) 13:45, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, yes, but had you actually read the article instead of being lazy you would have been referred to the Astrophysical Journal's December 10th edition. I'm not an expert in this field and would rather not get involved in this article, but it seems clear to me that this finding is significant enough to pose reasonable questions about the theory and render the opening statement incorrect. As I understand it (and it's a limited understanding) this only challenges one of the 3 mechanisms used to determine and verify the age of the universe, but it appears to significantly challenge it none the less. Please do be a reasonable editor. As I said before, I would rather an expert in the field examine this and adjust the article accordingly, but if they are going to be lazy then it will either relegate the task to a non-expert or leave the article in an incorrect/out of date state and we should be too snooty to allow that (the latter that is). Please do give it a look and forgive my own (perhaps hypocritical) laziness. Daniel Santos (talk) 11:40, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Follow up: Here is the abstract from Astrophysical Journal. There is another article from the Nov 17th, 2007 edition of Space Daily, which I may not be WP:RS/peer-reviewed. Either way, I lack both access to these journals and proper knowledge to digest the information from the AJ article. Daniel Santos (talk) 12:02, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Here's the full paper online, found by searching Google for the title. The description of the work in the Wired article screams "crackpot", but the paper itself passed peer review and looks like real science. Note that he's not questioning the CMBR blackbody (which is definitely not of local origin), just the details of the perturbations in it. -- BenRG (talk) 12:59, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

It's a legitimate paper, it simply doesn't live up to the sensationalism that is being promoted by the Wikipedia editor. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:47, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Threads by 66.94.176.22

66.94.176.22 has been adding comments at semi-random locations in the talk page, in one case in the middle of an unrelated existing thread. I've moved everything here. -- BenRG (talk) 21:40, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Who asked you to move my comments. Now the comments are meaningless, since they are not positioned to coincide with the text. Plus, some comments have simply been deleted. But I'm used to having my work destroyed on Wikipedia. Perhaps you spent a great deal of money on a PhD, so that gives you the right to treat others badly. How would you like it if someone took all of your comments and stuck them out of context in an idea ghetto. Creep! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.94.176.22 (talk) 08:09, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Looking over the COBE map that supposedly shows the background radiation in the universe, I noticed that it is an earth centric model. That is, we are in the center of the COBE map. This must be wrong. Every earth centric cosmological model has turned out to be incorrect in the past. This one must be wrong too. At best, it may show the limits of how far we can "see." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.94.176.22 (talk) 18:59, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

local mini bang and CMB

Is it not true that a localized bang occurred in otherwise empty space that the CMB map would look exactly the same? That is, if the universe turned out to be a trillion times larger than expected and it had a large empty space - much larger than what area of space we can currently detect, and a "bang" event occurred within it, the CMB would look the same as what we would expect if the entire universe had been create from a bang event? What reasons could there possibly be, if this is true, to jump from a more modest hypothesis regarding local space to a grander one involving the whole universe? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.94.176.22 (talk) 03:24, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

CMB MAP Universe/Observable Universe

Shouldn't the Map be changed in the article to say observable universe - or even better, observable space? Calling this a map of the Universe is very misleading. Scientific writing needs to be done with some rigor - even for popular science.

Big bang theory assumptions

This section is a mess.

"These ideas were initially taken as postulates, but today there are efforts to test each of them. For example, the first assumption has been tested by observations showing that largest possible deviation of the fine structure constant over much of the age of the universe is of order 10−5.[29] "

This makes a statement about the age of the universe. We can only approximate the age of the part of the universe we can detect.

"If the large-scale universe appears isotropic as viewed from Earth, the cosmological principle can be derived from the simpler Copernican Principle, which states that there is no preferred (or special) observer or vantage point. "

What is meant here by large-scale? This would appear to be a value judgement.

The worst thing about this section is that it completely ignores the first and foremost assumption, that the cosmological redshift is caused by an expansion of space. Should this assumption prove untrue, the entire edifice collapses, says Dr. Michael J. Disney in American Scientist of September 2007 pages 383-385. This source should there be cited in section 2.2. http://www.americanscientist.org/issues/pub/modern-cosmology-science-or-folktale/1 72.186.213.96 (talk) 20:27, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

The article states: "The universe has been measured to be homogeneous on the largest scales at the 10% level.[32]" How can the Universe have been measured? We have no idea how large the universe is. We can say that the part of the universe that is known to us has been measured, but how can we say more. Once again the word "universe" is used without apparent rigor. Perhaps there are scientists who understand the Big Bang, but they do not appear to be the authors of this article. Either that or these scientists cannot write well. Please, only write about what you understand. Adding formulas and jargon doesn't make the article better. Good plain language is what is needed. First get the basics right, then attempt the details. If you mean to state that the unmeasurable has been measured, explain yourself. And once again, I think that scientists must differentiate when they mean Universe - all there is, and universe, all that is known. Perhaps some new standardized terminology is needed. Cosmologists, please take note. I don't mean to beat a dead horse here, but obviously, my point is not getting through.

I would like to get to understand this, but in every article or program I have viewed, the use of language is so sloppy, it is impossible to make any sense of what is being stated. When this kind of thing is read critically, it reads like nonsense. Does one have to throw away all logic to appreciate this? Should one dispense with Aristotle's idea of the excluded middle? I mean, either something is measurable or it isn't. Which one is it? Do you really think to suggest that everyone except a physicist is too stupid to get something so basic? People are not that stupid; so which is it? Or maybe you just don't know. Don't feel bad if that is the case. Self knowledge has value. Knowing that you don't know is a good start. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.94.176.22 (talk) 00:46, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

The expansion of space is just a hypothesis says Dr. Michael Disney in his above cited article. This belongs in section 2.2. 72.186.213.96 (talk) 02:01, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

If you have some comments for how to improve the section, let them be known. Obviously, the claim that the expansion of space is "just a hypothesis" is not reliably sourced and so cannot be included. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:50, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

isoboring

So , on a grand scale, we don't know which way is up. What's the big deal?What can one possibly hope to deduce from the fact that we can't see major differences in any direction in space?

What was the first particle

What was the first particle according to the Bang Bang? Higgs? String?--24.22.111.99 (talk) 23:15, 4 October 2008 (UTC)Kyle MacKenzie Street