Talk:Big Bang

IMPORTANT: This is not the place to discuss how you think the universe began. This page is for discussing improvements to 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.

Citation needed, really?

The article claims that the Big Bang is prevailing, but someone added a [citation needed], template call. Isn't that pretty ridiculous in the intro? While the article have a "religious interpretations" section, it would be well served by a section with some small comparisons with competing cosmologies, to demonstrate the relative longevity and stability of the Big-Bang-Theory-with-the-Alan-Guth-Inflation-Extension. Then such a [citation needed] could easily be dismissed by a simple "RTFA!" Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 13:21, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Big Bang - features, issues and problems

Stickee, I see you reverted my edit with the reasonable message that my points had already been addressed elsewhere in the article. I had written the following:

The first problems to consider are what actually triggered the Big Bang and where did the energy (and subsequent matter), spacetime and fundamental forces actually originate from. This is not yet understood.

Although the closest I could find to anything I had mentioned was in the section 'Speculative physics beyond Big Bang theory' with regard to brane cosmology models (unless you are referring to something else in the article that I missed) however brane cosmology models don't explain the origin of energy/matter and spacetime (or strings) as far as I am aware. I understand that this talk page isn't the place to discuss how anyone thinks the universe might have begun (and I don't intend to), but I feel it is fair to state in the article simply that it is unknown how the energy and spacetime from the big bang came into existence - it is very much relevant to the topic.

I just wanted an opportunity to discuss this before considering putting anything back in the article (which I wasn't planning on doing in a reactionary manner). Thanks CharlesC (talk) 00:19, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I do see where you're coming from. But to quote Stephen Hawking, "Anything that happened before the big bang could not affect what happened after". To attempt to find out what happened before the Big Bang is both impossible and pointless. So I guess a better paragraph to include would be one stating how what happened beforehand is unknowable. Your thoughts? Stickee (talk) 00:59, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I considered modifying or reverting your addition, but held off because I'm on semi-sabbatical and someone else would likely vet it after me (as was the case). Your statements about the energy content being controversial don't reflect the views of the scientific community, as far as I've seen. First, there are scenarios where the gravitational potential energy and mass energy of the universe exactly cancel; this gives the universe a net energy of zero, which - while not required - is an attractive interpretation. Second, conservation of energy is a local effect. The universe taken as a whole isn't required to conserve it (or any other conserved quantity), so to have it come into existence with net energy doesn't invalidate the model.

Third, the "big bang" as a theoretical model generally doesn't include the instant at which everything came into existence; in scientific circles, it actually refers to the evolution of the universe from the time it was at the Planck temperature onwards (as we don't know what physical laws apply at the Planck temperature, other than that our low-temperature description of gravity as a non-quantized force stops working properly). So, both the mechanism of creation and any violation of normally-conserved numbers that occurred at that time are out of the scope of the scientific use of the term, at least.

Popular media uses the term "big bang" to refer to the instant of creation, and that's sometimes used as a shorthand by scientists (when they're more accurately referring to "time since the Planck epoch"). However, the article already made this distinction clear last time I did a detailed check of it. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 01:14, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

to add to that, to use the most 'pure' interpretation of WP:OR (in, i will admit, a semi-tongue-in-cheek manner), absolutely everything before the planck temperature is original research, in the sense that we literally cannot know what happened before this point. we can speculate, but that does no good as far as wikipedia is concerned. we can certainly report what others speculate in peer-reviewed journals with regards to what happened before then, though. Kaini (talk) 04:05, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

It seems the Bang is still Banging, according to recent articles on dark matter, showing that the universe is still expanding. Brian Pearson (talk)

Lemaitre's position

As Lemaitre's title of Monsignor is given before his name I don't think it's necessary to mention the fact that he was a priest in the same sentence. In any case the fact that he was a priest is irrelevant to his work on the Big Bang theory: he did that in his capacity as a professor of physics. He was also a qualified artillery officer, but I don't see any reason why that needs to be mentioned. FergusM1970 (talk) 18:00, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Any theory of the Big Bang obviously has religous implications. And not everyone will know what the title of Monsignor means. And most sources on Lemaitre and the BB do mention his religion. -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 18:06, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't see any religious implications to the Big Bang theory, and the fact is that Lemaitre's position at the university was that of part-time physics lecturer. The Big Bang theory is purely scientific and contains no supernaturalism or christian dogma, and I don't see how it was in any way influenced by the fact that Lemaitre was a priest. In any case this isn't an article on Lemaitre; it's an article on the Big Bang theory. The article on Lemaitre DOES discuss his religion, quite extensively, but I don't see how it's relevant here. FergusM1970 (talk) 18:16, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Others can see the relevance, which is why most popular sources on the BB that mention Lemaitre's role will also mention that he was a priest. If it really is that irrelevant then we should remove his title as well. -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 18:19, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

What is the relevance of Lemaitre's being a priest to the Big Bang theory? FergusM1970 (talk) 18:34, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

It's relevant to the development and acceptance of the big bang theory. Atheists originally rejected the concept, believing it pointed to the existence of a God. The big bang theory itself has nothing to say about religion. However, social commentary on it and personal perspectives about it lean heavily on theistic issues.Farsight001 (talk) 21:03, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Farsight001. Note that FergusM1970 turned the implication around, to render it nonsensical. Would be readers be interested in this? Apparently they are, since sources outside WP mention this a lot. We just reflect that interest here. -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 21:21, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm reverting the descriptive of being a priest. Totally irrelevant. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 21:18, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it is to be expected that OM would see things in a totally black-and-white fashion. -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 21:21, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

And yes, you fail to read WP:NPA. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 21:22, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Still swearing in your edit comments, I see. How childish. Please address the issues raised above, rather than making snap judgements that add nothing to the discussion. -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 21:30, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Fuck me. Did I offend you? I'm so fucking sorry. I make no snap judgements. For many years, I reject the premise that science has anything to do with religion. Nevertheless, and despite your continue personal attacks, that he was a priest is totally irrelevant to what he did. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 22:41, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Not paying attention, are we? You, like Fergus, have the implication the wrong way around. -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 22:54, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I favor including that he was a priest. It is just a couple extra words and at the very least there is some indirect relevance. People will find it interesting and I don't see the harm. Also I personally did not know what Monsignor meant. –CWenger (^ • @) 21:43, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I endorse the non-priest version in place as of 21:19. Prof. Lemaitre was acting in his capacity as a physics professor, not as a priest, when developing the model. Having him referred to as a priest in the old version of the lede was jarring at best, and at worst gave the implication that religion played a significant part in development of the model. Removing it improves the article. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 21:54, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

In that case Monsignor should be removed as well, unless we are counting on our readers being ignorant of what that means (like I was, to be fair)? –CWenger (^ • @) 22:00, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Monsignor is a courtesy title these days, though not giving a shit about Catholicism, I have no clue if it was 70 years ago. Nevertheless, he was a physicist who happened to be a priest. Technically, genetics was "founded" by Gregor Mendel, to whom full credit is given on Wikipedia. But the genetics article, just mentions his name, not "Brother Gregor Mendel, a Franciscan Augustinian Monk." OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 22:46, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Actually the genetic article mentions that he was a "a German-Czech Augustinian monk and scientist who studied the nature of inheritance in plants." No doubt some asshole will feel compelled to remove that now, just in case the article gets too accessible to the lay reader. -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 22:58, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

...and the heredity article says "... Moravian monk Gregor Mendel ...". Gandalf61 (talk) 14:16, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Also, in that case, we should not report anybody's religion, for fear someone may think, heavens forbid, that it may have influenced their work. And of course we know that is never the case, don't we? -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 22:05, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

(I've just come here following a notice on WT:PHYS.) I'd prefer to keep it per Farsight001 (also, in more recent times some people have rejected the Big Bang model because they think it is somehow incompatible with the Christian faith, and mentioning that Lemaitre was a priest would immediately show them how ridiculous their position is), even if I disagree with part of what Michael Prince says. I can live with not saying “priest” if consensus emerges for that, but in that case we shouldn't say “Monsignor” either, per CWenger. ― A. di M.​_plé​^dréachtaí 22:35, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

There isn't any evidence that religion DID influence Lemaitre's theory and the original sentence described him ONLY as a priest, not mentioning his actual qualifications. My opinion is that the fact Lemaitre was a priest is irrelevant. It wasn't Lemaitre the priest that formulated the Big Bang theory; it was Lemaitre the scientist. Anyway, his religious background is covered extensively in his own article and I think mentioning it here just gives undue weight to something that has nothing to do with the theory. FergusM1970 (talk) 23:45, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Stop being economical with the truth, Fergus. I merged the sentences so that it said he was a priest and a scientist, and you reverted that. -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 07:43, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Economical with the truth? Hardly. I clearly stated that the ORIGINAL sentence only said he was a priest. Your edit, which I reverted, again placed "priest" before "scientist" and I feel this is inappropriate. You explained that edit by asking me to show both sides, and there aren't two sides here. Lemaitre was a physicist who developed a theory of physics. FergusM1970 (talk) 13:59, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Economical with the truth means exactly that. Start debating honestly, please. -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 22:07, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I have already made clear that I was NOT being economical with the truth, as I was describing the ORIGINAL SENTENCE and not what you wrote, so you can stop accusing me of dishonesty right now. Do you make a habit of personal attacks on everyone who disagrees with you? FergusM1970 (talk) 14:11, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Apparently you don't understand what "being economical with the truth" means. -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 19:00, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes I do, and you haven't explained why I'm guilty of it, preferring to make a series of insinuations instead. Grow up. FergusM1970 (talk) 04:02, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Since you claim to understand it, there's no need for an explanation, then, is there? But please explain to us why you you emphasized that the original sentence "described him ONLY as a priest, not mentioning his actual qualifications", yet when I added the required qualifications to it you deleted it? -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 15:10, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Actually it was me who added the required qualifications; you put "priest" back in, and that's what I deleted. Now who's being economical with the truth? Not that it matters; everyone can check the edit history and see who's done what. FergusM1970 (talk) 01:09, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

You deleted the version with just priest in it, reverting back to the science qualifications. I restored the priest title and kept the science qualifications. You complained (above) that only the priest title was present, yet you deleted to the combined entry. So once again, I ask, why was that? -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 08:59, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

I've explained several times already why I did that: the fact that he was a priest as well as a scientist is irrelevant. If he'd written an especially good prayer would anyone care that he was an astronomer? No. So when he develops a theory why does it matter that he was a priest? FergusM1970 (talk) 16:15, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

No, that doesn't explain why you were economical with the truth - but I guess you are never going to answer that, are you? And I have explained that it is not a question of what you feel "matters", but of what readers are interested in. -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 19:57, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Whilst the flame war between you two isn't exactly productive, this - "it is not a question of what you feel "matters", but of what readers are interested in" - is the absolute crux of the matter in my opinion. Kaini (talk) 20:47, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm not interested in a flame war, but Price is repeatedly claiming that I was economical with thr truth, which is clearly not the case. FergusM1970 (talk) 01:57, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

any comments on the latter part of my statement? the content of an article should obviously not be compromised because of the view of an editor or editor(s). Kaini (talk) 02:07, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

One assumes that readers of an article on the Big Bang theory are interested in the Big Bang theory, not on the religious beliefs of a Belgian scientist. I simply don't see why it's relevant, and I particularly don't see why the original version of the article - which I kicked off this fuss by editing - ONLY referred to Lemaitre as a priest and completely missed out his rather extensive RELEVANT qualifications. FergusM1970 (talk) 14:49, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Fergus, the state of the sentence before your first revert is rather irrelevant, since you later deleted a more balanced version. -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 19:13, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

The question isn't really why should this article cite that he was a priest, moreso, why shouldn't it? This is an encyclopaedia and I think that the fact that he is a priest who supports the big bang theory is quite an interesting fact. I can completely envision a scenario where someone notes that fact within this article, follows the link to Lemaitre's article, and finds out more. That scenario would not happen if the fact wasn't mentioned, and if the reader was a person unaware of the meaning to the term 'Monsignor', that scenario would not happen if explicit mention of the fact wasn't included. Kaini (talk) 00:35, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

He's also a Belgian who supported the Big Bang theory. So what? Stressing the fact that he was a priest just gives the impression that this had something to do with the theory. At the very least it should be given less emphasis than the fact that he was a physicist and astronomer, both of which are actually relevant. FergusM1970 (talk) 13:56, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

No, religion had no influence on the Big Bang model itself as far as we know (though we'd need to ask Lemaitre himself to be sure), but it did have notable influence on whether some people accepted it. (Also, I wouldn't revert if someone added “Belgian” to the article, though I wouldn't add it myself.) ― A. di M.​_plé​^dréachtaí 16:35, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

The evidence suggests that religion DIDN'T have any influence on whether or not people accepted it; it's now the accepted scientific concensus and the only people who reject it are christians. The reason many scientists initially rejected it doesn't appear to have been anything to do with it having religious implications; they just thought the maths was wrong. FergusM1970 (talk) 11:24, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) If “the only people who reject it are christians” then religion is not irrelevant. Also, right now the article says “several complained that the beginning of time implied by the Big Bang imported religious concepts into physics”, so if you have evidence that that's wrong you might want to fix it. (Also, I've heard that teaching the Big Bang model in the Soviet Union was forbidden for that reason, but a basic Google search has turned up lots of irrelevant stuff and I can't be bothered to refine it right now.) ― A. di M.​_plé​^dréachtaí 11:49, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I believe that idea of a big crunch (which went hand-in-hand with the BB for awhile) was considered in conflict with dialectical materialism. -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 19:00, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

This is clearly an area that stirs up a fair bit of emotion and a certain relaxation of AGF. I am in favour of the current wording which starts "Monsignor Georges Lemaître" without further detailing his priest role, since this is expanded upon later in the article. I would, however, like to consider splitting "Monsignor" from "Georges Lemaître" and having a separate wikilink to monsignor. This would serve to direct users who are unclear to an article detailing exactly what monsignor means, while hopefully distancing Georges Lemaître, albeit very slightly, from this religious honorific. My suggestion, therefore, is "Monsignor Georges Lemaître, an astronomer and professor of physics...". I thought I would float this here first, rather than join the merry-go-round of edits/reverts. any comments? Careful With That Axe, Eugene ^Hello... 11:21, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea to me. That way anyone who doesn't know what "Monsignor" means can easily find out. FergusM1970 (talk) 11:25, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)In general, having readers have to follow a link to understand a sentence when an explanation can be given in a few words is a bad idea (see WP:LEADLINK); also, this way it's not obvious whether “Monsignor Georges Lemaître” is one or two links for readers whose browsers don't underline each link. ― A. di M.​_plé​^dréachtaí 11:49, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

But readers don't have to know what Monsignor means to understand the sentence, which concerns a professor of physics developing a theory. FergusM1970 (talk) 21:20, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Just to throw in my 2 cents. In the lead, neither the fact that Lemaitre was a priest, nor the fact that he was a professor of physics is really relevant at all, so for the sake of brevity lets just stick to the point and say that "Georges Lemaître proposed what became known as the Big Bang theory of the origin of the universe, he called it his "hypothesis of the primeval atom"." We don't go out of our to comment on the fact Friedman our Hubble, were professors and where,etc. The fact that Lemaitre was a catholic priest is further commented in the body of the article, where it is given sufficient weight.TR 11:45, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I'd say that the fact he was an astronomer and professor of physics is at least somewhat relevant, given what the theory is about. I have no doubt that Lemaitre's research was strongly influenced by his understanding of the physical universe and the forces that act on it, whereas there is little sign that he gave much thought to zombies and talking snakes. FergusM1970 (talk) 14:11, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Is him being an astronomer more relevant, than Friedman being an astronomer?TR 14:22, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Fergus, if you equate religion with zombies and talking snakes, how do expect us to view you as impartial and adhering to NPOV? -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 19:00, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

The bible mentions zombies and talking snakes, among other absurdities. The Big Bang theory sticks to hard science. This distinction is relevant in terms of the Big Bang theory and how Lemaitre came up with it. As for the barbaric idiocy that is christianity I never claimed to be impartial. I'm not. I loathe christianity. So what? This is an article about SCIENCE, not men living inside fish or a drunk fucking his daughters because a "loving" god turned his wife into salt. FergusM1970 (talk) 04:07, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

I rest my case. Clearly you can't edit impartially - which is not the same as having beliefs or a POV, BTW. -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 15:10, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

What does my opinion of christianity have to do with my ability to impartially edit an article on the Big Bang theory? The theory has nothing to do with christianity, so frankly your "logic" escapes me. FergusM1970 (talk) 01:14, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

For example, it influences your ability to impartially make the assertion that the Big Bang theory has nothing with Christianity. The history of the reception of the theory can impossibly be viewed independent of Christianity and that fact that Lemaitre was a priest. Without Lemaitre's priesthood, it is unlikely that the pope would've embraced the theory in 1951. His priesthood also fueled the early accusations from atheists, that the theory was trying to insert creationism into scientific discourse via the back door. Your opinion of Christianity seems make you blind to any such observation.TR 12:26, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

But the Big Bang theory DOESN'T have anything to do with christianity and the pope's opinion of it is exactly as relevant as that of any other totally unqualified laymen. Scientific theories do not require the endorsement of a superstitious old bigot in a dress. FergusM1970 (talk) 14:55, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

The fact, that you can't seem to discuss this in normal terms is another indication that you are not fit to edit this article in an impartial manner. Anyway, no it does not matter for the theory itself what the pope says about. However, the fact that the pope did endorse the theory WAS (extra) reason for people like Hoyle to oppose the theory. You also seem to be under the mistaken perception that the public reception of the theory is not relevant to the wikipedia article about said theory. This show a lack of understanding in what an encyclopedic article is.TR 16:38, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

The place for religious opinions on the theory is in the section about religious opinions on the theory. They are not relevant to the discussion of the theory itself.

Hoyle was a borderline creationist, by the way; he's the one who came up with the ludicrous "747 in a scrapyard" argument against evolution and he also made a fool of himself by claiming that Archaeopteryx was a fraud. I very much doubt that religious support for the Big Bang theory was his reason for disagreeing with it. FergusM1970 (talk) 01:34, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

=

Well, it should be obvious that many people will not only find it interesting that he was a priest, but will also be interested in his (socio-economic) class, race, (obviously gender), sexual orientation, and his views on equal rights and evolution. Penis size and how often he urinated will be of interest to some. *sigh* I know sarcasm isn't very effective but ... I vote that you leave out the irrelevant. Thesis 1 He was profoundly influenced by his religion and this motivated (or biased) his work. Thesis 2 His work had implications *to him* that were anethema to his religious beliefs. Thesis 3 He viewed his work as separate from his religious beliefs. I don't know which (if any) of these are true. Seems to me that for his priesthood to be relevant, one of these theses (or alternate) needs to be asserted. Way off topic unless I'm missing something? Do we delve into every contributors motives when discussing the results? His title is recognized conventionally by *most* official (governmental) organizations. I believe it is also wili policy to include? Unless implied (ie Dr. or PhD).?? Would it generally be considered polite to include or not? Are we polite or not? cheers71.31.153.56 (talk) 15:27, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Remove religious interpretations

The religious interpretations of the Big Bang theory are not found in the most reliable sources on the Big Bang theory. As such, it shouldn't appear on this page. See WP:ONEWAY and consider removing that section. 140.252.83.241 (talk) 00:51, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

WP:ONEWAY actually kinda contradicts your assertion:

Fringe theories may be mentioned in the text of other articles only if independent reliable sources connect the topics in a serious and prominent way. However, meeting this standard indicates only that the idea may be discussed in other articles, not that it must be discussed in a specific article. If mentioning a fringe theory in another article gives undue weight to the fringe theory, discussion of the fringe theory may be limited, or even omitted altogether. If no independent reliable sources connect a particular fringe theory to a mainstream subject, there should not even be a link through a see also section, lest the article serve as a coatrack.

and regardless of that, WP:NPOV, which is part of WP:5P, contradicts and overrides it:

In general, achieving what the Wikipedia community understands as "neutrality" means carefully and critically analyzing a variety of sources, then attempting to convey the results to the reader clearly and accurately. Wikipedia aims to describe disputes, but not engage in them. There are few hard-and-fast rules for doing this—much depends on the good faith of editors, who should be striving to provide information, not promote a particular cause. However, observing the following principles, together with those of verifiability, will help to achieve the level of neutrality which is appropriate for an encyclopedia.

WP:NPOV 101 there. Kaini (talk) 02:21, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

This isn't about "disputes". This is about the fact that religious interpretations of this scientific theory are not properly part of the scientific theory being presented. They are interpretations: independent of the theory and they are not discussed in any science text or peer-reviewed paper on the subject that I've seen. Those are the best sources. The sources that discuss the religious interpretations can be left to the page on that subject which can link back here. 140.252.83.232 (talk) 10:59, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Rather dangerous to suggest that articles on scientific subjects should only reference scientific sources - that is half way to the widely-discredited "scientific point of view" idea. As you say, we have a whole article on religious interpretations of the Big Bang theory, and there is no harm in giving a short summary of it in this main article. Gandalf61 (talk) 13:57, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Why is it dangerous to suggest that scientific subjects should use scientific sources? Wikipedia doesn't use scientific sources in the article on the Resurrection of Jesus, after all, which would simply say, "The resurrection account in Christian folklore is a scientific impossibility. The only rational way to approach the story is to deny its truth-value in terms of actual physical occurrence." We could reference this: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/9781444327946.ch18/summary If Wikipedia is that pluralistic, it should be no problem to add this to that article. If you agree, I'll let them know over there that what's fair is fair. 140.252.83.232 (talk) 20:44, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I said it is dangerous to suggest that articles on scientific subjects should only reference scientific sources, which was what you appeared to be suggesting. The danger is that this gives a special standing within Wikipedia to the scientific world view. This would be contrary to the principle of NPOV, which says that our articles should represent "fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources". Since reliable non-scientific sources contain commentary on the Big Bang, then this commentary should be mentioned in our article. For comparison, our article on the Plagues of Egypt not only references religous sources, but also contains a lengthy section on non-supernatural explanations of the plagues, and our article on ghosts has a section on scientific explanations of ghosts. I agree with your point that the Resurrection of Jesus article is, as it stands, somewhat one-sided, and it would be improved by references to notable secular interpretations and explanations of the resurrection narrative.Gandalf61 (talk) 11:51, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Title Change

im an amateur with wikipedia, so my apologies in advance. This is still a Theory, is it not? When spoken in context, most people still call it the Big Bang Theory, right? Should'nt the main page be called "The Big Bang Theory" and not just "Big Bang" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.20.162.142 (talk) 22:25, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

This has previously been discussed in some detail. See this recently archived discussion, for instance. Careful With That Axe, Eugene ^Hello... 09:19, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Daemonstryke, 11 June 2011

id like to edit your page on the big bang theory. it says that its the most factual account of the universes creation and yet ive found an article about an autistic child physicist who has debunked this theory and is working on his own, in effect changing alot of what we've thought to be true for the past 60 years... here is the link for my source http://www.theautismnews.com/2011/03/25/autistic-boy12-with-higher-iq-than-einstein-develops-his-own-theory-of-relativity/

Daemonstryke (talk) 19:06, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

✗ Not done. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence...not a story in the Daily Mail. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 23:10, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Confused about 100%

"Results from the WMAP team in 2008, which combined data from the CMB and other sources, indicate that the Universe today is 73% dark energy, 23% dark matter, 4.6% regular matter and less than 1% neutrinos.[35]"

I've read [35] and I don't see how this citation supports a claim that there is about 101.6% total energy/density. This is all the more amazing since the whole article purports to know what occurred at "Approximately 10^-37 seconds . . . "

Perhaps there needs to be an admission or frequent reiteration that these are estimates + or - a certain amount or within a certain probability range? Just a thought about the need for humility in the face of uncertainty. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.169.71.227 (talk) 04:23, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

The actual error bars on these numbers are smaller than the error implied by the number of significant digits given here. Since the numbers are given with two significant digits their sum can only be expected to equal 100% up to to significant digits, which it does. So, I don't really see you problem.TR 07:33, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I've added "approximately" to indicate that the quoted figures are not exact. Gandalf61 (talk) 08:01, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

New Big Bang Theory

A new Big Bang Theory is doing the rounds. Check it out here: Big Bang Theories

I'd advise that a summary be entered into the Speculative physics beyond Big Bang theory section.

Cheers

Manus

Ozresearcher (talk) 09:35, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

How about, NO.TR 11:18, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Truly awful. -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 11:20, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Abysmal indeed. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 11:28, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I especially liked "Suddenly the dimension of time existed". Gandalf61 (talk) 11:56, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Overview

Certainly not earlier than the Planck Epoch.... The Planck Epoch is defined to be from 0 to 10E-43 seconds. Hence this makes no sense. The article clearly implies that we can model INTO the Planck Epoch. I doubt it. We do not have the Science. Can you clean this up so that it is not nonsense? Saying it isn't earlier than 0 (isn't before the beginning) is not an answer.71.31.153.56 (talk) 15:05, 25 June 2011 (UTC)