Talk:Big Bang/Archive 16

Edits by User:Bhenderson
A new user continues to make edits to this page that are slightly problematic. The prose he includes doesn't add any substantive information to the article and introduce a misconcpetion that inflation accounts for the current scale of the universe (which it doesn't because expansion is still occuring). --ScienceApologist 15:59, 10 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Report it as vandalism? Kind regards, --MisteryX 07:23, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * You mean report it at WP:AIV? Rule 1 there says "The vandal is active now, has received a proper set of warnings, and has vandalized after a recent last warning, except in unusual circumstances." "Now" means the last few hours, not months - reminding a vandal months later would just give him the thrill of eluding us this long. Besides, it doesn't sound like vandalism - see Avoid the word "vandal"‎. Art LaPella 17:40, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Ah! I didn't check the date, my bad! However, the subject is still a vandal target. Anyway, sorry for bothering. :) Kind regards, --MisteryX 09:02, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Instead of Big Bang, Big Slowdown
Instead of seeing the Universe as originating from an infinitely small and dense partical of matter, why not see the beginning of the physical Universe as a slowdown of the vibrational frequency of energy, creating matter out of a portion of "all that is".

iamcurioustoo````


 * If you mean that's how matter appeared from a point (or at least a small volume), we don't know - see the main article's second paragraph. If you mean this effect made matter appear everywhere, Big Bang theory disagrees with you. Since this discussion doesn't belong here (see the second info box at the top of this page), is there a blog or something where such theories are discussed? Art LaPella 21:32, 14 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Let's send people to BAUT forum if they want to discuss such ideas. --ScienceApologist 21:34, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I have a question
If we know that the universe is expanding, and we can see it, can we see it expanding in another direction? ie if we look one way it is expanding out and then we look another way it is expanding out so it must be a circular expansion. My question is could we find the center of the universe looking at red shifts? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kniesten (talk • contribs).


 * No, because there is no center. See expansion of space, in particular the model analogies. –Joke 17:42, 19 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Joke is right; because of Special Relativity, the expansion looks the same regardless where you are at in the Universe. Thus, there is no preferred reference frame (read: "there exists no center").  This is one of the logical hurdles that Special Relativity puts in front of us but I encourage you to visit your local library to read more on this subject - there are some wonderful books on the rich physics of Cosmology, as well as some great articles here on Wikipedia.  Cheers, Astrobayes 18:09, 19 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Or more simply: The expansion looks the same in every direction. But that doesn't prove we're at the center, because the expansion would look the same in every direction regardless of where the (hypothetical) center might be. Art LaPella 18:36, 19 September 2006 (UTC)


 * And that result is possible even under Galilean relativity, so the invocation of special relativity is pointless. In any case, a detailed expansion model requires general relativity. Urhixidur 12:46, 11 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually, you do need special relativity, as Astrobayes suggests. This is because Galilean relativity possesses a preferred reference frame, basically the frame that is at rest with respect to the "aether."
 * One can think about an observer that measures a wave of light moving with speed c. If Galilean relativity were true, then a second observer moving at speed v with respect to the first measures would measure the speed of the same wave of light to be c-v if they are moving in the same direction as the wave, or c+v if they are moving in the opposite direction.  There is a preferred frame -- the "aether" frame -- in which the speed of light is the same in all directions.  In special relativity, both observers measure the same speed of light c.
 * Because of this preferred frame, observers in a Galilean relativistic-universe could determine their velocity with respect to the "aether" and thereby the cosmological principle would be violated. It is true that an accurate discussion of cosmology requires general relativity, but the reason that the expansion does not necessarily have a "center" can be discerned already in the special theory.  Wesino 23:11, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Make Origin of the universe a seperate article.
There should be an article containing a summary of all the theories. I can't even find information on other theories. Zazaban 22:25, 22 September 2006 (UTC)


 * It's called non-standard cosmology. To link to it from the main Big Bang article, you would have to click one of the piped links labeled "alternatives" or "alternative cosmological models". Art LaPella 23:33, 22 September 2006 (UTC)


 * this is somewhat POV. By redirecting Origin of the universe to here, Wikipedia has left no room for alternative thories by telling people what one POV or the origin of the universe is. Zazaban 00:38, 23 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Hmm, I've never looked at the Origin of the universe redirect. In other contexts, "room for alternative theories" is what this talk page kills most of its time debating. The consensus seems to be that the Big Bang is almost the only POV among scientists, although other POV's are more widespread among amateurs, many of whom argue on this talk page. If someone did write an Origin of the universe article, it would have to emphasize the Big Bang almost exclusively, with perhaps more of a nod to creationists. Art LaPella 02:30, 23 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Most if not all of the naturalistic "alternatives" do not posit an "origin" of the universe per se. While there are religious groups who talk of "God" as the origin of the universe, usually they're dealing with creationism rather than science. It is an editorial decision to decide that when readers are interested in the term "origin of the universe" they are interested in scientific accounts since the universe is more of a scientific term than creation. --ScienceApologist 13:12, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Bib bang sound update
Bib bang sound update  --BMF81 12:49, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

CMB mistake
The CMB section states that the radiation is "composed of photons emitted during baryogenesis." It's the result of recombination of the plasma, not baryogenesis. 169.229.15.204 21:17, 10 October 2006 (UTC)ayp, 10/10/06, 2:16pm pdt.


 * The photons originate from baryogenesis but they are scattered by the plasma before recombination. --ScienceApologist 21:22, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

-- I see. Thanks! 169.229.15.207 17:58, 11 October 2006 (UTC)ayp

This is another overly biased page on the wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.138.189.255 (talk • contribs) 12:58, October 27, 2006


 * Actually I think a third point of view on the photon issue is useful here... The photons are in thermal equilibrium with whatever is around, and so are being constantly emitted and absorbed by whatever charged particles happen to be floating about (at least until recombination).  There are certainly photons present well before baryogenesis.  But, if you take a look at your typical QED Feynman diagram, for example, and you can see the photon lines ending and beginning on electron lines -- photon number is not conserved, and for all intents and purposes the creation of a photon can be taken to mean when it was emitted.  Recombination is really the only time at which a photon can be emitted and have a decent chance of not being re-absorbed before making it to a CMB experiment on Earth.  So I'd say that recombination is probably the best choice of epochs at which to say the CMB photons were made, since pretty much any photon we see in the CMB came from then! Any objections? Wesino 23:56, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Helium-3 update
This may already be in the article, or irrelevant (lol), but here's an article on the reconciliation of Helium-3 theories vs evidence. Scientists reconcile discrepancy with Big Bang theory. Anchoress 09:20, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

The Zohar and Big Bang theory?
Why is there no discussion at all in this article about the theory of creation in the Zohar? It is very similar to big bang theory. 71.206.88.142 20:15, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


 * This article is about the Big Bang as the scientific notions. Many different religions claim that the Big Bang is somehow consistent or predicted by there religion. While it might be reasonable to have a section or an article about that the Zohar claim by itself would not be neutral and isn't obviosly notable. JoshuaZ 20:18, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


 * If you want to bring up neutrality, read this: "The Big Bang, as a scientific theory, is not based on any religion." -> This is the thesis statement of an entire section. This is broad and possibly inaccurate. Even saying "The Big Bang is not based on any religion" is a strong (POV) statement to make, as I can find several dozen sources to disprove this. Masterhomer [[Image:Yin yang.svg|20px]] 20:27, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Inasmuch as Lemaitre had religious motivations for his idea, the Big Bang is "based" on religion. But Lemaitre made no appeal to his religion in his modeling, and there are ways around the first cause arguments of Lemaitre so there really is no religious basis for the theory. --ScienceApologist 20:29, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


 * "According to the writings of sixteenth century kabbalist Rabbi Yitzchak Luria, the universe was created out of nothingness from a single point of Light."


 * I'm trying to find a first hand source for this, but it surely sounds similar to the way Big Bang theory is commonly taught. Masterhomer [[Image:Yin yang.svg|20px]] 20:33, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Well just because it sounds similar doesn't mean it is similar. None of those who developed the Big Bang were relying on Luria as their source. --ScienceApologist 21:04, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Possibly (and probably) true. However, a person can claim prior art regardless. Masterhomer [[Image:Yin yang.svg|20px]] 21:36, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


 * In a patent office or a court of law, not in the eyes of the scientific community. --ScienceApologist 21:51, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


 * "Created out of nothingness" does not describe the Big Bang. All energy in the universe compressed in a singularity is not "from nothing."  Rather, "from everything."  --TouchGnome 02:34, 10 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Everything and nothing...that's sounds Zen-like. Perhaps Buddhism was the inspiration for it all? Xiner (talk, email) 02:40, 10 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Some of these prior art coincidences can be interesting -- sometimes it seems as though people only have a finite number of ideas with which to explain everything. But the Big Bang theory is based on a whole lot more than just one idea.  Show me a religious text which computes the spectral index of primordial perturbations, the galaxy-galaxy correlation function, and the abundances of light elements, and that would be something! Wesino 00:00, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Theoretical underpinnings section
I did some more or less heavy rewriting of the Theoretical Underpinnings section. I think there is still some work to be done on this section, but first I want to be sure to justify some of the changes that I made, so here we go:


 * I removed the references to Weyl's postulate since it is only peripherally related to the subject matter, and it is presented in a somewhat confusing way. The postulate (not sure why it's called that) merely says that if the matter has vanishing vorticity (eg, it's not whirling around) then we can choose coordinate charts with equal-time surfaces so that the flow lines of the matter are orthogonal to the surfaces.  Now first of all this isn't a postulate, it's more of a theorem: if a condition is satisfied (vanishing vorticity) then spacelike surfaces of an appropriate type exist.  The vanishing of vorticity is itself a consequence of the cosmological principle in the sense that it violates isotropy: if the matter has angular momentum, the angular momentum vector chooses a preferred direction and the isotropy assumption is violated.  Therefore we can choose equal-time surfaces to which the flow lines of matter are orthogonal.  But this doesn't mean that time is unambiguous (see below).


 * Also, on the WP business, time is never unambiguously defined in general relativity. In FRW metric, there is a preferred measure of time, but you can always get any value (less than) this preferred value if you're willing to take a suitably wacky trajectory through spacetime.  But this is a not-so-important point, I think.


 * The sentence that the expansion of space is removed from consideration in spacetime measurements is false (or at best misleading). Choosing comoving spatial coordinates and a conformal time coordinate most certainly does not eliminate the expansion of space!  Light from distant quasars redshifts just as much in the comoving/conformal coordinate system, and the physical distance between galaxies increases just as rapidly.


 * It's true that on local scales the expansion is not measurable, but on local scales the universe isn't expanding. Local gravitational  forces (from the Sun, center of the galaxy, etc.) completely dominate the quote-unquote force of the Hubble expansion.  This can be made more precise I think, but takes us beyond the confines of this article.

I think that the beginning part of the section is pretty good -- it emphasizes the fundamental assumptions (verified by experiment) that are built into the FRW/Big Bang model. However the remainder of the section looks weaker to me, even after the rewrite. I suppose I wanted to clarify the existing comments but I didn't feel justified in axing some of the material from this section. Is this really the place to go into detail about what comoving coordinates are? Or conformal time? Or particle horizons? Or should the interested reader just be referred to the relevant pages (some of which don't exist yet)? Wesino 23:41, 20 November 2006 (UTC)


 * "the tidal force coming from the Hubble expansion that is pulling them apart." I don't know if cosmologists would describe the Hubble expansion as a tidal force, but the wikilink goes to a description of ordinary gravitational tides. I think the words "tidal force" should either be reworded, piped or unlinked. Art LaPella 00:27, 21 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree it's confusing. The tidal force phrase is toast.


 * For the cosmologist's point of view, I had in mind the description of gravitational forces a la Misner, Thorne, and Wheeler's 'Gravitation' textbook, where they take the point of view that the proper way to think about all gravitational forces is as tidal forces. These can be described precisely through the equations of geodesic deviation, which come as close as possible to assigning a force to the Hubble expansion, which is what you'd need to do in order to compare the binding forces of things like the galaxy to the Hubble expansion.


 * I'm a little unsatisfied that it's left in the somewhat vague limbo of comparing the how bound an object is to the Hubble expansion, which is not a terribly well defined comparison I think, though it does seem to get the basic idea across. I don't know how to make it work better, which might mean some of the Theoretical Underpinnings material might belong somewhere else.  Or just that a more talented writer needs to tackle it.


 * But you're absolutely right that as written it sort of came out of nowhere, and introducing tides without the proper context probably evokes more beachgoing imagery than we really want here... Wesino 00:41, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

History section
Hi, I am thinking the second sentence in the Big Bang sentence could be strengthened by someone who knows more about the history of the theory. Right now it begins with "Observers determined..." but this is a little weak. Which observers? When? Is it possible to say when the first person claimed this, or when it began to be accepted as common knowledge?

It looks like in the next paragraph Hubble's main new contribution was to find that the redshift was proprtional to the distance, which from the looks of the paragraph was unknown 'till then. Is this right? Wesino 14:13, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

300,000 or 380,000?
Cosmic microwave background radiation says it started 380,000 years after the Big Bang. Graphical timeline of the Big Bang says 372,000 to 387,000. But Big Bang, List of time periods, Orders of magnitude (temperature), Horizon problem, Time in physics, Photon epoch, Paleopsychology, Fireball, Cosmic neutrino background, and after a recent edit Timeline of the Big Bang all say 300,000 years. Is one of those figures more right than the other? Some other sites around the Internet also report either figure. Should we maybe stick with one of those numbers just to be consistent? Art LaPella 01:22, 27 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Ranges like 372,000 to 387,000 are probably the most correct since the surface of last scattering is thick. I thought it was actually thicker than that even, but I'm not around my CMB notes to check. Wait until confirmation.--ScienceApologist 18:37, 27 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Hey folks. For some reason I couldn't find the relevant info for the 3-yr WMAP analysis.  But in the 1-yr analysis  page 7, table 2 we have
 * age of universe at decoupling tdec = 372 +/- 14 kyr,
 * thickness of surface of last scatter dtdec = 115 +/- 5 kyr.
 * I think it's reasonable to take WMAP as the "gold standard" of estimates of the age of the universe when the CMBR was made. (Pity I can't find the corresponding info for the three year data...)


 * The meaning of these parameters is given on page 8 of the same paper. To summarize: they define tdec as the peak of the "photon visibility function."  The PVF is basically the probability (per unit interval in redshift, time, etc -- usually it's taken to be conformal time) that a photon scattering then will not re-scatter before it is observed today.  So tdec can be interpreted as follows; given you have just observed a CMB photon, it is most probable that it last scattered a time tdec after the Big Bang.  The other parameter dtdec, is the full width at half maximum (FWHM) of the PVF.  Roughly the probability that the CMB photon you just saw last scattered "near" tdec is P, then the probability that it scattered "near" tdec + dtdec is P/2.  (Likewise for tdec - dtdec)  The "nearness" bit is necessarily fuzzy because the PVF is a probability density and they aren't clear about what the measure is -- but that's not terribly important as FWHM is arbitrary anyway.


 * So clearly the definition of the last scattering surface (LSS) is a little fuzzy. Depending on what you're trying to get across, you could say that the CMB was formed at 372 +/- 14 kyr, or between 257-487 +/- 15 kyr, or some other range depending on where you want to cut things off.  My vote is that 372 +/- 14 kyr is the best reflection of when the CMB formed, or say 380,000 yrs in a slight abuse of significant figures.  I say this because while the range 257-487 is in some sense more correct, it seems to me that it vastly overstates the uncertainty of the measurement.  Wesino 22:46, 27 November 2006 (UTC)


 * The thickness of the surface of last scattering is a point that even many cosmologists don't realize. That it took nearly a quarter Hubble time for the universe to go from starting to decouple to fully decoupled meands is a signature clearly seen in WMAP inhomogeneities. Since the thickness of is on the order of 100 kyrs, I would say that 300 kyrs would be a good statement for a quick response (as in a summary intro) but our article on the cosmic microwave background radiation really needs to discuss the thickness of the surface of last scattering. If you want to write it, go for it, Wesino. --ScienceApologist 23:09, 27 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I'll go take a look at the CMB article, see if there's anything I can add... Wesino 08:26, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * ....ok, I added one or two things over at CMB, hope peopld dig it. Wesino 00:07, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Another Question
Hi everybody. I have a sincere question that I can't seem to find the answer to anywhere else (at least in layman's terms) and I am hoping someone here can answer me. I don't study physics. I study (don't laugh) music. However, I am fascinated by physics and especially by astronomy and cosmology. Anyway, my question is this: If the universe is expanding in some three-dimensional shape such as a sphere, what is it expanding into? In other words, an expanding balloon is doing so inside of something - a room or a box for instance. So, in the case of an expanding universe, what would be analogous to the room or box? Does this question recieve serious consideration in the world of physics? What are some ideas? Know any places I can go? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Curtis bartok 21 (talk • contribs) 02:49, 5 December 2006 (UTC).


 * Try metric expansion of space. Cheers, Wesino 01:43, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Hugh Ross and this article
Does Hugh Ross (creationist) bare mentioning in this article? JoshuaZ contended that he was the most prominent person who believes in the first cause cosmological argument with respect to the Big Bang, but I disagree. I say that there are plenty of others who are more prominent (such as the pope). What do others think? --ScienceApologist 18:32, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I understand that Ross has some credentials as an astronomer, but I want to briefly digress to a more general question. Forgive me if this has been discussed previously, I'm just a vandal-stomper who keeps this page watchlisted for obvious reasons.
 * I'm not exactly clear on the reasons why so many science articles, including this one, contain sections for religous commentary in the first place. I don't understand why the beliefs of religous individuals (no matter how prominent) would be considered relevant to scientific theory. Also, it doesn't seem to be standard practice to include sections of scientific commentary in articles about religions or their dogma, so why is the reverse always acceptable for some reason? Doc  Tropics  18:45, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I think that a case may be made for removing the entire section either from Wikipedia or to another article. However, religious implications for scientific points are considered important to many readers. And we do include "scientific" or "academic" commentary in many articles devoted to religion. For example, consider the historicity of Jesus points included in the Jesus of Nazareth article. --ScienceApologist 18:53, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


 * You make a good point regarding historicity SA; that is definitely an exception to my original statement. In general, I would support redirecting material like this into an article that specifically addresses "Religious and philosophical responses to X". I tend to feel rather strongly that science articles should focus on theories and facts, not opinions. Doc   Tropics  19:02, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Forking might be a good option for this section (which is probably getting to be too big as it is). I'll let some others weigh in on the matter. --ScienceApologist 19:07, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm in favor of a fork. I have to say that I share many of the frustrations of DT with regards to Wikipedia science articles. It seems that a few of them suffer from a kind of permanent "Spiritual Interpretation" section at the end, as well as constant edit battles relating to the inclusion of different people's religious/mystical/spiritual interpretations of the theories described in the article.  (See M-Theory for example, where a very similar discussion is going on in the talk page).  I think that the situation could be resolved by some sort of more-or-less uniform policy.
 * Seems like a fork would kill a few birds with one stone. The people who feel these interpretations are important could have a place to voice their opinions, and the page on the scientific theory could, well, focus on the scientific theory.  It would definitely reduce some of the edit warring that goes on.  I think some links between the two pages would be just fine, and interested parties could follow them as they like.  I certainly don't see the need to censor anyone, since spiritual interpretations of scientific theories have been around for a while, and if only for that reason are deserving of some mention.  It just that they ain't science themselves. Wesino 01:38, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, exactly! They deserve mention...in an article about "interpretations", or similar, with cross-links in a "See also" section to the relevant main articles. Anything beyond that would seem to be "undue weight" in the context of a science article. Doc  Tropics  04:26, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * If the philosophical implications of the Big Bang don't belong in this article than either they belong elsewhere or nowhere. The theory does have non-scientific implications and a full treatment of the issue will involve discussing those which are notable.  I don't understand the claim that only science should be included in a science article any more than a claim that only religious points of view should be included in a "religious" article. Of course, once that material reaches the point that it deserves an article in its own right it is best to spin it off.  So I'm in favor of moving the material to a new article with just a paragraph here with a "See main article: XYZ" link to it.  It seems to me that if a new article isn't spun off, then the material should either be allowed here or declared unencyclopedic. If done, what should the name of the new article be? Jacob1207 18:32, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Big bang. What went bang and where was it
If all matter,all space and time didn't exist before the big bang then what went bang and what was it's sorce? neilje —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Neilje (talk • contribs) 15:33, 10 December 2006 (UTC).
 * We don't know what (if anything) was before the Big Bang, or if that one-time event (if it was indeed one-time) needed a source as things do today, or even if "before the Big Bang" is as meaningless as north of the North Pole. See the second paragraph of the article. Art LaPella 22:38, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Archives
I redistributed the contents of the 6 archives found in this version of this talk page into 15 archives because the 6 archives were too long (not suitable for dial up connections). I corrected the links in the archive box above. --Meno25 01:53, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Big Bang's Afterglow Fails: reliable source
This link below talks about published results of a study using WMAP data to look for evidence of "lensing" effects which should have been seen (but weren't) if the microwave background was a Big Bang remnant.

It was added recently and almost immediatly removed by editor ScienceApologist with the comment: "not a very good artilce. Removed per WP:RS". Here is the article: The article seems to be based in the following scientific paper by Lieu, Mittaz and Shuang-Nan Zhang, UAH, "The Sunyaev-Zel'dovich effect in a sample of 31 clusters: A comparison between the X-ray predicted and WMAP observed decrement,", Astrophysical Journal, Sept. 1, 2006, Vol. 648, No. 1, p. 176. Thanks.
 * Big Bang's Afterglow Fails Intergalactic 'Shadow' Test, September 2006, ScienceDaily, source: University of Alabama Huntsville (UAH)


 * This artilce is sensationalizing the content of the paper. Since it is popular level, it is important we don't include it lest people get the wrong idea. --ScienceApologist 13:38, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree, the article is non-scientific in that it's based on a news release. Xiner (talk, email) 01:39, 12 January 2007 (UTC)


 * If the material is published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, then the journal article itself should be referenced - not the sensationalized article on Science Daily (a website with a history of giving undue emphasis on one or more parts of research than others). I'm with SA on this. The Science Daily article is a bad idea.  If you want a link, put one in for the Journal Article itself. Astrobayes 14:36, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Stellar drift
Why does stellar drift redirect to Big Bang, but there is no reference to the stellar drift in the article whatsoever? --65.183.165.85 17:31, 19 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Probably because the Big Bang is the biggest cause of the motion of stars, and I didn't find a good alternative article for that redirect. Proper motion and radial velocity would be good if we could redirect to both at the same time, but we can't. Star doesn't work because we can't use the # symbol in a redirect. Stargate (device) is another possibility, as the term "stellar drift" is used mainly on that show, not by scientists. Art LaPella 22:33, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Since you know about the topic, Art LaPella, why not set up a disambiguation page, especially since there's no mention of the term in this article at the moment? Xiner (talk, email) 01:28, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * A disambiguation page is normally for several senses of a term, not for a cause, two components, an explanation and a fictional device it complicates. A short article could be helpful although I've seldom written anything like that. Art LaPella 04:54, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * You could start a stub. I think any info is better than none at all, and there are disambig pages with just two links. I think this would be useful. Xiner (talk, email) 14:21, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, but please look at stellar drift. I don't usually write that much prose because it gets rewritten or deleted. Art LaPella 22:44, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Alright, I understand. I've watchlisted the page and do some copyedit later. Thanks! Xiner (talk, email) 22:59, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Confusion
So, the only of what happened before the Big Bang, was that it was in an extrmeely dense state? What exactly "was" before the Big Bang, and why did it occur. I don't see these explained in the article. I personally don't know enough about the Big Bang, so I was just perplexed not tosee any information here on that. 74.137.230.39 20:36, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Scientists don't know that either. Maybe we should re-explain that answer (or non-answer) to that ever-popular question, but the article's second paragraph already covers it. Art LaPella 06:02, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
 * As the article explains (least I think it does), some believe that question is not valid. Weird, I know. Xiner (talk, email) 17:41, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Amateur observations
Academic Publishing Wiki is a new Wiki project for original research articles, including articles on the Big Bang. If appropriate, please link to [The Big Bang, the Fabric of Space and the Apple]