Talk:Big Bang

Needs more sources
Every online source I have looked at says there's a lot of evidence disproving the other theories of the beginning of the universe or existence in totality. However, the Wikipedia article mentions only one, a book from 1996. Where are the rest of the sources? Galactiger (talk) 20:45, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I've added a link to 'non-standard cosmology' in the 'See also' section. Praemonitus (talk) 01:03, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: English Composition 1102 085
— Assignment last updated by Jgleana (talk) 03:45, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

The article's intro is mistaken twice
(1) A theory and one of its elements, are quite different things. The cosmos' expansion, the Big Bang momemt, tP etc. are just elements of the theory !!!!! (2) The first formulations of the Big Bang Theory were written already in 1922 by Alexander Friedmann. based upon his own equations. So currently the article is also wrong regarding the first main step of the theory. Therefore I suggest the following intro : According to contemporary science, The Big Bang is the first moment of the universe. Its very existence, characteristics and the physical and cosmological processes that followed, are the main elements of a theory named The Big Bang  Theory. Based on his own Friedmann equations, Alexander Friedmann contributed in 1922 the origin of the theory ...... יוסי ברנע בן פנינה (talk) 01:21, 6 May 2024 (UTC)


 * This makes sense to me. Ymblanter (talk) 12:37, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Both Alexander Friedmann and George Lemaître proposed an expanding metric for the universe based on solutions to Einstein's theory of General Relativity. In 1928, Lemaître suggested that the universe may have originated at a single point -- a "primeval atom". Note that Hoyle's 1948 steady-state model allowed for an expanding universe with no big bang. Hence, an expanding universe did not necessarily imply a big bang. I think that's why Lemaître gets credited. Praemonitus (talk) 13:38, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I disagree on point (1). The "big bang" as an event does not even have a consistent definition within scientific discourse. It is better for the article's opening to describe the (well defined) theory instead of attempting to describe the (ill defined) event. Aseyhe (talk) 20:26, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

is Big Bang a description of a beginning for our universe?
"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. "

Duly noted. But this is not about debating the beginning of the universe but rather to question why the article currently mention the idea of the beginning of the universe at all.

The article mention this: "According to the Big Bang models, the universe at the beginning was very hot and very compact"

Where does the idea that the Big Bang models describe the beginning of the universe come from? It might be a spectacular event and a drastic change in the state of the universe but does that justify to talk about it as a description of the beginning of the universe?

Shouldn't the article be more cautious and simply describe the big bang theory as a prediction of the past of the universe as far in the past as the models are adequate to do so? PipMcDohl (talk) 03:19, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Rather than saying "According to the Big Bang models, the universe at the beginning was very hot and very compact" shouldn't the article say "At the furthest point in the past the Big Bang models are adequate to predict, the universe was very hot and very compact". Less poetic but more accurate, right?

One way to picture the problem is to call it a language issue. We could talk of the big bang theory as describing the beginning of the "known" universe. Meaning by this the eras of the universes that we can start to describe with reliable models. But the wording "beginning of the known universe" is misleading as we don't know the first era described by the models to be the very first era of the universe altogether. We could name it the first era but only as "the first era in the timeline that we can predict and describe". Naming that first era "beginning" is questionable.
 * Scientifically, we can't definitively speak to the "Universe" (upper case), meaning the entirety of existence. Saying "known universe" (lower case) is redundant wording, as that is implicit. I don't see a need to hem and haw about speculative possibilities we don't know. If that still bothers you, we could always add a footnote. Praemonitus (talk) 13:10, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Article presently lacks words Jewish, Torah, Bible, Biblical
Since the article first sentence refers to Georges Lemaitre, a priest, surely the word Biblical is a major lack. Since this scientist/physicist is not known to have denied the existence if a Cre-ator, somehow there is room for additional wikitext.

A 2014 article with the title "New Big Bang evidence supports Biblical creation, says Orthodox physicist" and I'll try to shoehorn it in, but first it's to be recognized that the article's LEDE's "Physics lacks" wording appears to be misplaced. Shoehorn second. Nuts240 (talk) 01:23, 12 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Huh? Writing doesn't generally benefit from a robust checklist of Words That Must Appear—especially ones that aren't jargon particular to the topic.
 * Perhaps you should pause and try to concretely state what your editorial concerns actually are, given you yourself are describing the potential remedies as "shoehorning". Remsense  诉  02:46, 12 July 2024 (UTC)


 * You may be looking for the "Religious interpretations of the Big Bang theory" article. The article on Georges Lemaître doesn't mention the Bible. Praemonitus (talk) 03:12, 12 July 2024 (UTC)