Talk:Big Bang

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 140.252.83.241 (talk) at 00:51, 3 June 2011 (→‎Lemaitre's position). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Warning
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.
Featured articleBig Bang is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on February 23, 2005.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
January 31, 2005Peer reviewReviewed
February 4, 2005Featured article candidatePromoted
February 23, 2005Today's featured articleMain Page
August 22, 2005Featured article reviewKept
May 31, 2007Featured article reviewKept
Current status: Featured article

Template:WP1.0

Hoyle

The reference to Hoyle should be linked to the Fred Hoyle page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.65.82.66 (talk) on 19:00, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Evolution

This article uses the word evolution a few times to describe the development of galaxies after the Big Bang. While I agree its technical use is correct, it seems to me that it just furthers the misconception that the Big Bang is part of the theory of evolution. Is there any way we can change this? Harutsedo2 (talk) 15:07, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The term "evolution" is widely used in astronomy and astrophysics ("stellar evolution" being one of the most common contexts). I don't think this is confusing enough to justify removing the term from this article, given that it's widely used in the field. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 19:37, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]
And yes, you fail to read WP:NPA. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 21:22, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
...and the heredity article says "... Moravian monk Gregor Mendel ...". Gandalf61 (talk) 14:16, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
(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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Economical with the truth means exactly that. Start debating honestly, please. -- cheers, Michael C. Price talk 22:07, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Apparently you don't understand what "being economical with the truth" means. -- cheers, Michael C. Price talk 19:00, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
(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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
(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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Big_Bang&oldid=432271667"