Talk:Big Bang

Timeline cooling wording

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)

That seems fine to me. Your re-write provides better pacing and is easier to read out loud. Praemonitus (talk) 16:09, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

 Done. Thanks. Praemonitus (talk) 14:55, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 February 2022

CMB in the third paragraph should hyperlink to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_microwave_background 2A01:4C8:1562:EEC9:F93E:54AE:BCA1:70A9 (talk) 12:39, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Cosmic microwave background is already linked in the first paragraph (with CMB in parentheses), and we have this guideline called MOS:REPEATLINK that discourages repeat linking. Praemonitus (talk) 14:20, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Big Wave Theory

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)

I only see a few publications on the topic, so it might not have reached a sufficient threshold of notability yet. Plus the term "big wave" is used in other contexts. Praemonitus (talk) 15:53, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

It appears to be a proposal from over a decade ago [1] that had no discernible influence after a smattering of pop-science stories. That's far below the threshold for inclusion here. XOR'easter (talk) 18:56, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

"Big Bang Theory" listed at Redirects for discussion

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)

Problems with the lead

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)

James Webb refutes the big bang theory

The James Webb deep field photograph kills the bing bang theory. This article should be written into Wikipedia now. Please do it now.

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-022-02056-5