Talk:Big Bang

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

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

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

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

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

Big Bang is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.

This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on February 23, 2005.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
January 31, 2005	Peer review	Reviewed
February 4, 2005	Featured article candidate	Promoted
February 23, 2005	Today's featured article	Main Page
August 22, 2005	Featured article review	Kept
May 31, 2007	Featured article review	Kept
February 29, 2020	Featured article review	Demoted
Current status: Former featured article

This article is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Astronomy: Cosmology B‑class Top‑importance

	Astronomy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Astronomy, which collaborates on articles related to Astronomy on Wikipedia.AstronomyWikipedia:WikiProject AstronomyTemplate:WikiProject AstronomyAstronomy articles
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Cosmology task force.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Physics B‑class Top‑importance

	Physics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics articles
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Skepticism B‑class Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism articles
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Spoken Wikipedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles that are spoken on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Spoken WikipediaWikipedia:WikiProject Spoken WikipediaTemplate:WikiProject Spoken WikipediaSpoken Wikipedia articles

Template:WP1.0

Template:Vital article

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

Semi-protected edit request on 19 February 2022

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

James Webb Telescope refutes the Big Bang

This new article from Nature needs be written into Wikipedia. The article points out four surprising ways the James Webb Telescope contradicts the big bang theory.

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