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. If you wish to discuss or debate the validity of the Big Bang please do so at BAUT forum or talk.origins.

Features and problems subsections order

I care a lot about wikipedia article sections and subsections being organized in a logical order. With respect to 'Features and problems' subsection, I think we ought to either have an alphabetical order or a going-from-more-significant-features-slash/problems-to-the-less-important-ones order. I prefer the latter. Currently, the order seems to vaguely be the latter, but not quite. For example, while 'Horizon problem' and 'Flatness problem' are the first subsections and seem like the most important features/problems, 'Globular cluster age' seems like the least important issue (because it's pretty much been resolved and never really posed much of a problem for the theory), but it doesn't go last.

I'm curious what you guys think about what the subsection order should be. If we go with the important-to-less-important issues idea, then I think the order should be something like this (based on what the subsections currently say, although admittedly I'm not too knowledgeable on these issues):

Horizon problem, Flatness problem, Dark energy, Dark matter, Magnetic monopoles, Baryon asymmetry, Globular cluster age.

What are your thoughts on this issue? Would you prefer alphabetical? Etc. Byelf2007 (talk) 12 April 2012

way too technical for an encyclopedia, vote here...

This article is unnecessarily technical, with far too many links to concepts that are not needed to explain the Big Bang qualitatively. I think the article should briefly explain the key observations that support the Big Bang, and the key results on the age of the universe, with a lot less jargon.

If you agree or disagree, add your view to this section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pioneeranomoly (talk • contribs) 18:02, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

• Per WP:NOTVOTE, no. Please discuss individual entries or suggest clarifications instead. -- Fama Clamosa (talk) 19:47, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

• I don't agree that it is too complicated, the article is likely to be utilized by High School and College students who can benefit from a well-rounded, inclusive discussion of contemporary Big Bang cosmology concepts, however as was noted, discussions about proposed changes are the norm rather than voting. :) Damotclese (talk) 23:47, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

• I don't agree that it is too complicated either - I *entirely* agree with the related comments (and rationale) of Damotclese and Fama Clamosa above - hope this helps in some way - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 00:02, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

• It is too complicated for an encyclopedia, but wikipedia does not follow the norms on scientific topics...virtually all of their articles on science are too technical for an encyclopedia, and are essentially of little use to people who are not already studying the topics at an advanced level. An encyclopedia is a reference book that explains things in terms that a non-expert can understand, and wikipedia science articles generally fail to serve that function, but that seems to be the accepted practice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77Mike77 (talk • contribs) 02:49, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 3 August 2013

Please add the paragraph below to the "Religious and philosophical interpretations" section:

However, Buddhism seems to be in accordance with this theory. In Aggañña Sutta of Pāli Canon(27th Sutta of Digha Nikaya collections), Buddha presented a model of cosmology wherein the universe expands and contracts over extremely long periods of time, this description has been found by some to be consistent with the expanding universe model and Big Bang. The Buddha explained that the universe expands outward, reaches a stabilizing point, and then reverts its motion back toward a central point resulting in its destruction, this process again to be repeated infinitely.

Source:

EddyLiu88 (talk) 03:31, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

 Not done: Thanks, but as an apparently self-published source, I'm not convinced this meets Wikipedia's criteria for reliable sources. It would be better to describe the views of noted Buddhist scholars at Religious interpretations of the Big Bang theory. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 13:31, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Why does the opening switch back and forth between capitalizing "universe".? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beyondallmeaning (talk • contribs) 22:00, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Earliest moments.

I'm not sure what it means to say that the universe began as pure energy at a high temperature. Generally there has to be something that has a temperature. Can absolutely empty space have temperature? What type of energy? Strictly thermal? Does it mean that there was radiant energy, i.e. high-energy photons at above-gamma energy levels? I understand that even an extremely rarified gas can have a high temperature, but if there were no particles of matter of any kind at the beginning, what is it that was hot? I get that there was a quark-gluon plasma after inflation, but I don't understand the pre-inflationary situation. Please clarify this. Thanks.77Mike77 (talk) 21:10, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the very early universe was full of high energy photons. In fact these photons were at such high energies that they were continually conerting into particle-antiparticle pairs - which would then annihilate back into photons again, and so on. So the very early universe was full of a high-energy soup of photons, matter and anti-matter. Since the density was so high, interactions between particles were very frequent, and the soup of photons/particles/antiparticles is usually assumed to be in thermodynamic equilibrium, and can be modelled as a photon gas. Since the early universe is in thermodynamic equilibrium, we can assign it a meaningful temperature, which is related to the energy density of the universe - see here for more details. Gandalf61 (talk) 10:09, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Before the earliest moments

And so what came before the Big Bang? And what came before that? And that? And so on. Why did the Big Bang occur at the time it did? Why did the conditions making it happen exist? Why? Why any of it? What is it for? I do not know whether the universe is finite or not, but physicists' ability to answer these questions demonstrably is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.102.167.176 (talk) 17:04, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

I think what happened before the Big Bang is outside the scope of this article. Airborne84 (talk) 17:08, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

I am relieved that you can think. However, if the article postulates a definite beginning, a brief note regarding a prior state would be logical. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.102.167.176 (talk) 17:13, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Well, as soon as you can find some studies to reference that note about the prior state...--Mr Fink (talk) 17:21, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

77, I think that passages about what existed "before" the Big Bang do well in an article called "Before the Big Bang." Or perhaps added to an article on ontology or, more broadly, metaphysics, as we cannot yet reliably determine through science what happened before the Big Bang.

I also think that you might get better results if you weren't quite as condescending to other editors. Of course, it would be less entertaining if you toned down your elegant rhetoric. But we can't have everything, can we? Airborne84 (talk) 20:51, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

FWIW - The question of what may have occurred *before* the Big Bang is a good question I would think - seems Roger Penrose, an associate of Stephen Hawking, suggested that an earlier universe (of many?) existed *before* the present one - and the remnants of this earlier universe can be found in the present universe - for example, see => < ref name="Gurzadyan">Gurzadyan, V.G.; Penrose, R. (2010). "Concentric circles in WMAP data may provide evidence of violent pre-Big-Bang activity". arXiv:1011.3706 [astro-ph.CO]. {{cite arXiv}}: Unknown parameter |volume= ignored (help)</ref> - nevertheless, I *entirely* agree that considering (w/ related responsible evidences - if any are available) events *before* the Big Bang may be outside the present Big Bang article - and may be best considered in some other article(s) - such as the Multiverse article and related articles - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 00:42, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

It could be discussed in this article as well. All that would be required would be some material from reliable sources, some discussion, and an editorial consensus to make the adjustment. Airborne84 (talk) 17:11, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, on second thought, this may be worthwhile after all - esp if someone wants to have a try w/ this using reliably sourced materials - as before, possible sources to consider may be the following => Roger Penrose#An Earlier Universe and Multiverse - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 17:49, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

This is a question that has a simple answer, "we don't know". More properly, one might say we don't really know what happens at the Big Bang either since the singularity that appears there is most certainly indicative that the physical model has broken down and we need a new description. Eternal universes are certainly possible as are universes which are not eternal. Whatever the correct explanation, it will likely involve a form of quantum gravity that is not yet fully developed. jps (talk) 00:10, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

I think this topic would be better suited for the Cosmogony article, as that deals with the beginning of the universe, while the big bang deals with events immediately after that beginning. 74.128.43.180 (talk) 05:02, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

In the modern sense, "Big Bang" theory--regarding the origin of the entire universe--was nothing more than the atomic bomb exploded in New Mexico and soon after at other places in the world. The argument was soon expanded to include thermonuclear explosions developed by the United States and Russia and in which British, French, and eventually Chinese military scientists participated.

Attributing the beginning of the universe to a "Big Bang" is nothing more than a rehash of the ancient Roman technique of informing the conquered and defeated barbarian tribes around the Mediterranean that "From now on, your universe began with Rome." It fails to acknowledge the emergence of global consciousness through travel, radio, television and the internet - including the valuable contribution made by Wikipedia.

Insistence on NOT understanding the point is an irresponsible repression of common sense truth. It casts the entire future of post-modern society in an ignorant darkness that will take thousands of years to dispel and which creates inevitably deep, nuclear divisions within the human groups constituting the world's human populations.

It is time to openly admit throughout the world that the "Big Bang" theory of the origin of the entire universe is nothing more than a coy ploy based on the hugely monstrous explosions of nuclear weapons. Stability of the universe is obviously much greater than the stability of military and imperialistic claims about the origin of the universe.

Meanwhile, human beings are struggling to regain the evolutionary stability which seems to have begun, about six thousand years ago, its successful push to reach the Moon. The additional confusion of exclusively military theories of the universe is merely another unnecessary impediment to peace. SyntheticET (talk) 18:54, 30 December 2013 (UTC)