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.
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.
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 talk.origins.
This article is one of the core set of articles every encyclopedia should have.
This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot I. Any threads with no replies in 1 month may be automatically moved. Sections without timestamps are not archived.
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Please remove the following paragraph,"The God given timeline is 6000 years ago beginning from the creation of Adam and Eve. This is also known as the short age world. Scientist try to disprove God by talking about evolution and that the earth history dated back as far as 4 billion years. In Genesis chapter one and two of the bible it clearly states that God created the heavens and the earth in six literal days. How can evolution even be possible beginning from a single atom. Where did this one atom came from. They say that the earth was extremely dense and hot stating it must have a beginning. Time must start somewhere. The only answer is that God is the beginning and source of all life and everything in the universe whether animate or inanimate, whether principalities or powers." as it has no valid reason to belong in this article. 220.127.116.11 (talk) 19:51, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
I've had multiple people claim they can see that text under the overview section, but I can't see it or anything about it in the edit history. What's going on here?tronvillain (talk) 13:07, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
There was some sort of vandalism, but this is (I believe) now fixed: . Isambard Kingdom (talk) 14:10, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
Strange. I don't see it in the edit history, and I have two people in England claiming to be able to see it now.tronvillain (talk) 16:09, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
One of the simplified versions of the page, perhaps? 18.104.22.168 (talk) 20:17, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
The known physical laws of nature can be used to calculate the characteristics of the universe in detail back in time to an initial state of extreme density and temperature.
Look at the references: all from one author, and all making a claim that I think contradicts what we know about the Planck Era, i.e. that the known physical laws don't apply during the Planck Era, according to the definition of the Planck Era. And if turbulence is such a popular term in each of the three papers, why doesn't it appear anywhere in this article? 22.214.171.124 (talk) 16:01, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
Done I removed the research papers (primary source) and added a textbook discussion of the issue. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 16:48, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
I'm not sure this is enough... look at the phrase "can be used to calculate"... I don't think this is true! They can be used to extrapolate in detail back in time to an initial state, or they "could be used to calculate (if the laws of physics had not broken down)", but the way it's worded now is an abuse of the word "calculate". It's like saying, "At moonrise, the moon is exactly X miles to the east. A person can walk 6 miles an hour. It would take Y hours to walk to the moon." 126.96.36.199 (talk) 14:30, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
How about saying that universe whole energy is zero. And this is only made up of +ve and -ve in equal proprtion both having opposite properties. Ipradyuman (talk) 12:45, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
The picture of the Big Bang that I like was replaced by one that I think is slightly less good, because of the black background, which is "above, below, and to the left" of the singularity. I think that if this background were replaced by something more like a slate chalkboard graphic, a jpeg transparency graphic, or white space that the graphic would more accurately communicate that the Big Bang was in fact everywhere and not localized and not preceded by anything. While the current picture is more informative, I think it is slightly less correct than Universe_expansion2.png.