Talk:Big Bang/Archive 24

RFC: Religious interpretations of the Big Bang
There is a section in the Big Bang article discussing religious views of the Big Bang model. The presence and content of this section have been the subject of frequent debate. To clarify consensus regarding content of the Big Bang article, the editors of that article ask the community to comment on the following question: Should the Big Bang article mention religious interpretations of the Big Bang, and if so, how much space is appropriate to devote to that topic?

--Christopher Thomas (talk) 01:34, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Alternatively, this RfC could be phrased: "Should this article continue to retain a section discussion religious and philosophical implications of the Big Bang?" "Should the current section be expanded to include other religious and philosophical implications?" Thanks, AnupamTalk 03:29, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Brief comments

 * Mention in "see also" only. The purpose of the article is to describe the Big Bang model to readers. This section does not contribute towards that goal. At best, its function is along the lines of an "in popular culture" section; those sections tend to be discouraged. While broader cultural comment on a topic can sometimes be noteworthy, in this case devoting an entire section to religious interpretation appears to give the subject undue weight. Open any high school science textbook, and you'll see mention of the Big Bang. Open any bible (or other holy book), and you won't. Religious commentary on the Big Bang (as a specific topic of commentary) is a specialized topic with relatively little impact in society as a whole. A one-line entry in the "see also" section should be sufficient to reflect this. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 02:11, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep and Expand Section Being a scientific concept that pertains to the origins of the universe, the Big Bang is related to philosophy and religion. Numerous academic sources, when discussing the Big Bang, also take the time to discuss these implications and the effect they have had on history. As a result, Wikipedia should take the time to do so as well. The current section in the article, however, should be expanded to include other philosophical and religious interpretations mentioned in the main article of discussion of this subject, located here. In addition, articles on scientific concepts such as evolution, also take the time to discuss similar implications (e.g. example), setting a precedent for the case here. I hope this helps. With regards, AnupamTalk 03:35, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep and Rework/Expand Section. Encyclopedias should be comprehensive and give due weight to everything related to the scope of the article. Any article that fails to mention and discuss the significant impact the Big Bang theory made in various theological circles or religion in general would be incomplete and undeserving of the Feature Article status. The gold standard for this stuff is Evolution dealing with the exact same situation, but in Biology. We should aim to achieve that level of coverage (entire books [e.g. http://books.google.ca/books?id=N3mHJlxA3PcC] have been written about the topic) not hide it out of some kind of misplaced sense that acknowledging that this had an impact on the religious world is recognized those religion viewpoints as valid. And for the record, I'm about as hard an atheist as it gets. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 03:44, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep – Some level of coverage of this topic seems appropriate per WP:DUE. By way of comparison, the mainly science-oriented Earth article has a section presenting the cultural viewpoint, which includes some mention of non-scientific creation mythologies. Regards, RJH (talk) 04:57, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Make it brief, keep it a subarticle since it's a scientific theory, and there are many religious interpretations and criticisms of it, a separate article on that is better than having a large section here. Since we have a subarticle for it, there's no reason to have a big section here. It is a bad idea to duplicate Religious interpretations of the Big Bang theory here. 70.24.251.71 (talk) 08:26, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep Articles on scientific theories should not just describe the scientific content of a theory, but also discuss the historical and social context and impact of the theory. In the case of the big bang theory, this means discussing the impact that the theory has had on theological discussion. About 8% with the books indexed by google books that mention the "Big bang" also discuss religion. So it seem WP:DUE to have a discussion on the subject in the article. The best option IMHO is a short (one or two paragraph) WP:SUMMARY style section with a main article link to Religious interpretations of the Big Bang theory. The current section may need some remodelling to make it more balanced, towards other religions. (Although in English literature it seems, the implications for christian religions is most discussed.)TR 09:17, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep the section as a summary section, with detail in the linked sub-article. It is a notable significant and well-documented aspect of the topic, so it should be mentioned in line with WP:DUE. A Wikipedia article on a scientific theory should include significant views on that theory from other cultural and social domains.Gandalf61 (talk) 09:22, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete all mention of religious interpretations in this article, since religions have no basis in science or reason it doesn't belong here - a scientific article on the nature of the Big Bang theory. I support moving the content to the pre-existing Religious interpretations of the Big Bang theory where it belongs and linking to the article in the See Also section. Polyamorph (talk) 10:08, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep, but rename it " Philosophical & religious interpretations ". See my comments above and my three scientific articles cited below. —Geremia (talk) 13:42, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment I think the spin off article can not justify it's own existence and should be merged into the section (effectively just a redirect a this stage). 14:50, 1 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Mention in See Also only That section sticks out like a sore thumb, and that's because it violates WP:NPOV and WP:RSUW. If the article isn't just about science, why should it mention Catholicism and the pope but not Buddism, Hinduism, etc?  Why mention religion but not the TV show The Big Bang Theory, or science fiction, or the movie The Tree of Life, or the implications for academic philosophy, or other popular culture connections?   If we add all of that with due weight given to religion/Catholicism, the article will be diluted, too long, and significantly worse than it is now.  Let this article be about the science, with See Also links to articles on the big bang in religion etc.  Waleswatcher  ( talk ) 14:10, 28 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Mention in "See Also" only - per my earlier comments above -> science articles, including the main Big Bang article, should be "science only" - links to related non-scientific articles may be in a "See Also" section - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 14:53, 28 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete the bloody section for the reason I have stated here – religious interpretations of the Big Bang are just a load of old bollocks! Signed – IVAN3MAN (talk) 15:21, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * That they are load of bollocks is beside the point and not a reason for suppressing the section. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 15:43, 28 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Brief mention, split the majority off into the 'religious interpretations of...' article - and perhaps add a hatnote as well? It would shorten this (already quite long) article - improving readability - and also improve the 'religious interpretations' article which is rather lacking at present. Kaini (talk) 16:53, 28 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep, rework/expand, per the reasons listed by Headbomb. As pointed out, there is significant coverage of this Big Bang sub-topic. I think a link to the religious interpretations article, and a couple of solid paragraphs summarizing religious interpretations, is appropriate. James McBride (talk) 20:38, 28 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep. I think a couple of paragraphs are certainly permitted by WP:NPOV, which states that we should represent all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. I think it has been demonstrated that there are many published reliable sources discussing the theological impact of the Big Bang theory. Also, in response to a comment above, I think trying to limit the many sources talking about the big bang to purely scientific sources (like school science textbooks) goes against WP policy. (If you turn the argument around, it's against WP policy to have a religious-themed article without some scientific discussion of the topic, if there exists a significant amount of scientific literature on the topic.) Also, I would reject calling the section WP:FRINGE, since it's not a competing theory, but a short discussion of the impact the big bang theory has had on religion. ~Adjwilley (talk) 22:36, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep, religious interpretations The interpretation of the big bang by religions with billions of members is of immense interest and encyclopedic knowledge. Put it under the religious interpretations heading, as it should not be mixed with scientific inquiry.Gsonnenf (talk) 23:26, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Strong delete. We have an article on religious cosmology and editors are welcome to use it.  Judging by the lack of reliable sources and preponderance of original research, there is no such thing as a "religious interpretation of the Big Bang", only religious Wikipedia editors trying to force religion into science.  Religious people do not discuss the Big Bang in religious terms in their places of worship nor in their holy books.  The Big Bang is a scientific model, not a religious belief, and this is treated by the Encyclopædia Britannica without any discussion of religion.  The topic of theology and science should be covered by good sources.  It should not be forced into scientific articles without good reason. Viriditas (talk) 02:54, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep and expand: Based on reliable sources it is apparent that including the section passes WP:DUE. Having the section here is in alignment with WP:SUMMARY since the article Religious interpretations of the Big Bang theory exists. – Lionel (talk) 04:40, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. With "implications" but not "interpretations." Also, no specific religion need be emphasized. The current middle paragraph on what the Pope proclaimed... should be deleted.-Dilaton (talk) 05:45, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I would like to point out that Religious Theories on the Big Bang could very well be its own article if people really want to learn about such, this article in my mind should deal more with the cosmic implications of the big bang. Any religion attempting to incorporate into the article how it plays into their faith is going to need a lot of room and potentially derail the focus on the big bang itself.  Would individuals be happier with starting a new article on how different religions interprete the big bang separate from this one? Tivanir2 (talk) 13:16, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The article Religious interpretations of the Big Bang theory already exists and I among others think that's where it belongs, not in a scientific article on the theory of the Big Bang. Polyamorph (talk) 13:59, 29 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Weak keep. While articles on scientific topics should have a dominant scientific focus, I don't think brief, summary-style sections on the social impacts or mythologizing of the subject are unwarranted (cf. Sun). I wouldn't particularly object to sections about how the Big Bang is addressed philosophically or portrayed in fiction either. Though such sections should be kept brief, and if overall length becomes a problem, they should be among the first candidates to be relegated to the See Also list. Here, I think the middle paragraph in particular should go. We can't provide an overview of all major world religion's many views on the subject, and shouldn't just pick two at random.--Trystan (talk) 01:39, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep Per Adjwilley and my comments in the discussion leading up to this RFC. N o f o rmation  Talk  03:58, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Mention in "see also" only. There are any number of ways to be wrong, I don't see the reason to privilege the wrongness that happens to be the result of religion by giving it space in an article on a scientific topic. Keep it in Religious interpretations of the Big Bang theory. Dr Marcus Hill (talk) 10:48, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Strong keep and expand with respect to all major religions that have views on this. This is per WP:DUE and WP:NPOV. Adding just scientific content will not cover all points of view. As Religious interpretations of the Big Bang theory already exists as a child article as well, this definitely makes it a part of this article per WP:MOS and WP:SUMMARY as well. -- lTopGunl (talk) 11:39, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:UNDUE. This article covers a topic in science and should not be disrupted by the distractions of "religious interpretations" that have no bearing on the theory being described. —ArtifexMayhem (talk) 04:37, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep as a one- or two-paragraph section, on account of TR's "8% of google books" figure. I think Polyamorph's suggestion and the ensuing discussion are on the right track. --Steve (talk) 16:34, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep and expand per Headbomb and rename to Social and cultural responses, just like in the Evolution article. People saying this should be only a scientific article are wrong, this entry-point article should be about all possible ways to focus on the topic (cultural, historical, technical, phylosophical). If the article gets too long, the juicy bits (Observational evidence, design of experiments... and yes, religious interpretations) could be forked to their own articles and briefly summarized in this overview. Diego (talk) 10:38, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Apart from religion what are the other (referenced) social and cultural responses? Polyamorph (talk) 10:46, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Anything from Cosmological_constant seems relevant, for a start. (We should continue this conversation below). Diego (talk) 11:23, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * OK but surely that's relevant to the pre-existing History and development section. Also the section you linked to is uncited (there is one reference but it is a deadlink). OK speak to you below! :) Polyamorph (talk) 11:29, 6 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep present version, with its link to the detailed article.  Miniapolis  ( talk ) 19:12, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. I also believe the information about the religious views should remain in the article, at least in its current form (although it could also be expanded a bit). The theory is dealing with the beginning of the unvierse, which is an important topic for many religions, and as the following book (published by the Cambridge University Press) also shows, initial resistance against the theory was also because of the religious implications the "beginning of the universe" had. The same book also states that the "Big Bang" theory generated "one of the liveliest areas of contemporary science–religion interchange".Cody7777777 (talk) 14:07, 10 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep: I think too per WP:NPOV.Justice007 (talk) 14:52, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete -- A "See also" to Religious interpretations of the Big Bang theory is sufficient. Npmay (talk) 18:51, 13 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Small bang: Keep a sentence or two, and link to some religious discussion. This article is about physics, not religion. Religion should be a small bang here, not a big bang. History2007 (talk) 21:31, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep: Religious responses to the Big Bang Theory are definitely part of completing someones full understanding of history of the Big Bang theory. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 23:09, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete or very brief mention per WP:UNDUE. Religious implications are peripheral, at best, to the subject of the article. Even the Catholic priest who came up with the Big Bang Theory said that it had no religious or thoelogical implications. Various attempts to expand the section have been fraught with POV issues, OR, SYNTH and cherry picking. Extended treatment belongs in a lower-level article, not here. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 04:56, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete: Perhaps with one sentence and a link to another article. The Big Bang theory is a scientific theory, and that's what this article should be about.Jkhwiki (talk) 21:32, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

 * Anupam is quick to link to a Google search return listing "numerous academic sources" for this topic, but is unable to point to a single source that best represents this subject. So, I will ask him once again: if you had to choose one single source that best represents the intersection between the Big Bang and religion, which source would it be? Please list the name of the author and the title of the work.  This is a very simple request. Viriditas (talk) 03:40, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * User:Viriditas, would you like me to format those numerous academic sources in MLA for you? I, along with other editors, have pointed you to the same link numerous times but you refuse to acknowledge the references (see WP:IDONTHEARTHAT). However, I will format one reference for you. You can look through the link to see the others. One example of a reference, User:Viriditas, is the following: Beyond the Big Bang: Quantum Cosmologies and God by Willem B. Drees. Published by Open Court Publishing Company (April 1, 1990). In addition, other sources are found in the current section of the article. There are also several popular references designed by scientists discussing the topic, such as this one. Thanks, AnupamTalk 03:47, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Please take a moment out of your busy day of proselytizing on Wikipedia and familiarize yourself with WP:V, where source requests and verification are part of policy. In the future, when you are asked for the name of an author and title, please provide it.  The publisher of the source you have provided states that its mission is  "for the purpose of establishing ethics and religion upon a scientific basis...a reformation of religious life on the basis of science."  To that end, the source by the author you mention, Willem B. Drees, is his doctoral dissertation on how to preserve theology in the face of modern science.  Drees argues that theology
 * "need not be discarded as a pre-scientific attempt at explanation which has lost out to science, nor does theology need to retreat completely to an existential realm apparently beyond the reach of science. Rather, theology can take up the language of science to express and develop the meaning of theological concepts...If ideas about God can be successfullly embedded in a network of concepts, the ideas about God receive some credibility from the overall credibility of the network."
 * However, this purposeful injection of religion into science goes against what Georges Lemaître intended. According to the New Catholic Encyclopedia (2009):
 * "Both atheists and apologists have attempted to read a theological significance into the big bang theory, either as a substitute for or a confirmation of the biblical story of creation. Lemaître himself opposed both points of view. He is said to have expressed concern that some might see such a confirmation when Pope PIUS XII noted in 1951, in an address to the Pontifical Academy of Science, that with the big bang theory, 'it would seem that present-day science, with one sweeping step back across millions of centuries, has succeeded in bearing witness to the primordial Fiat lux...' (Un’ora di serena E, 44). However, in the same address the Pope makes it clear that 'the facts established up to the present time are not an absolute proof of creation in time' and that such proofs are 'of themselves...outside the proper sphere of the natural sciences' (Un’ora di serena E, 45) As a scientific theory, the big bang will always be open to further development, and at some future date it may be replaced by a different theory that better fits the data. (86)"


 * So it would seem that your source, Willem B. Drees, is pushing a POV. The question at hand is whether his POV is notable for inclusion when we have Lemaître himself opposing it.  Such claims are no different than Rick Santorum finding Satan in those who criticize the United States.  Should we add a section about Satan's evil workings to the article on Anti-Americanism or any criticism of the United States subarticles?  Religious people have also made similar claims about Hurricane Katrina and the Sumatra earthquake and tsunami.  Christian commentators like Pat Robertson, Charles Colson, and Hal Lindsey all say God was punishing the United States for its sins.  Should we add that religious interpretation to a new section on the North Atlantic tropical cyclone article?  There's quite a bit of content we can add.  At what point does this stop?  How many science topics must have this kind of religious interpretation added to them?  Does it stop with physics and tropical cyclones? Viriditas (talk) 04:32, 28 February 2012 (UTC)


 * The fact that Lemaitre took a specific position on whether the Big Bang had religious significance, indicates that the issue is notable. To answer your last question, a section on religious interpretation of a theory/scientific topic is warranted if there is significant discussion of those religious interpretations in reliable sources. In the case of the big bang, about 8% of the books that discuss the big bang mention the issue of its religious implications. A discussion of this issue is therefore warranted.TR 09:24, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Whether the "issue" as you call it is notable or whether this or that source discusses it has no bearing on whether a subsection is needed.  As we already know, the current subsection is supposed to be a summary style paragraph of a largely unsourced, OR-ridden article, and does not even attempt to represent the topic accurately, either in breadth or in focus.  Nobody has put forward any argument for keeping a separate subsection based on an unsourced, OR-infused parent article.  We make decisions based on the state of current articles, not on what we would like to see or what we envision might happen in the future. Viriditas (talk) 09:40, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Note that the current RFC, is about whether a section should exist, not whether the current section should be kept. You have yet to respond to the fact that a significant number of sources discuss the impact of the big bang theory on religious debate. Wiki policy is clear: if a significant number of sources discuss something we should report it.TR 12:02, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * There's no need for a summary style section based on a parent article that has been reduced to a stub because it was either unsourced, poorly sourced, composed of original research, or an off-topic polemic abut atheism in Russia. I have yet to see a "significant number of sources" that discuss any impact of the Big Bang model on religion, probably because they don't exist.  All I've seen so far is cherry picking and POV pushing.  You know, there are quite a number of highly visible popular science books on the subject of the Big Bang, all of which say nothing at all about the "impact" of the Big Bang on religion.  That should tell you everything you need to know, but facts are funny things.  If it is so significant as you say, then what do books like The Inflationary Universe: The Quest for a New Theory of Cosmic Origins (1997) and Lonely Hearts of the Cosmos: The Story of the Scientific Quest for the Secret of the Universe (1999) say about it?  Nothing at all? Viriditas (talk) 10:01, 2 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Notability is the requirement for the existence of articles not for the nature of article content itself. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:31, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Although, notability is not a requirement of article content, it most certainly indicative that content should be included.TR 12:02, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * No it's not, due weight is indicative of whether it should be included. IRWolfie- (talk) 12:55, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * A good article on the philosophical issues in cosmology, which also relate to the religious interpretations, is:
 * It discusses the issue of creation ex nihilo ("out of nothing") and cites these two related modern scientific papers:
 * —Geremia (talk) 13:34, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * —Geremia (talk) 13:34, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * —Geremia (talk) 13:34, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * —Geremia (talk) 13:34, 28 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Why should we be duplicating an existing article, Religious interpretations of the Big Bang theory, in this one? It already has its own article, and you can place a great deal more religious implications there than here, since this is an article about the theory itself, and should be weighted towards that. If we expanded to have such a great many impacts on the hundreds of world religions from this theory, then we'd have to split the article anyways, and we have a subarticle to which such a split would go to already. 70.24.251.71 (talk) 08:30, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * It would not be a duplication of the article, it would be a summary of it (or rather, a summary of what it should be, as that article is in very poor state right now). Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 15:46, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * What does the Encyclopædia Britannica online edition say about the Big Bang and religion? Nothing.  Instead, anything having to do with those two topics appears in the correct child articles, such as Ian Barbour ("...Barbour examined...the impact of the theory of evolution and the big-bang model of cosmology on religious thought"), and Christianity ("There were also attempts to show that the evolution of the universe, from the "big bang" of 13.8 billion years ago to the present state that includes conscious life, required the conjunction of so many individually improbable factors as to be inexplicable except as the result of a deliberate coordinating control...The idea of the total dependence of the universe upon God does not preclude the development of the universe in its present phase from the "big bang" onward, including the evolution of the forms of life on Earth.")  There's nothing about religion in their main article on the big-bang model.  Perhaps this co-mingling of religion and science is a uniquely American phenomenon attributable to a minority POV.  If so, it is undue weight. Viriditas (talk) 09:57, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * @Viriditas - Thank you for taking the time and noting the way the Encycopedia Brittannica (EB) handled this matter - the EB (and other related HQ sources) seems a worthy consideration imo - thanks again - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 16:48, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * May I point out that the EB online article is a whooping 4 paragraphs long. As such I does not cover many topics covered in this article such as the FLRW metric, the flatness problem, dark matter or energy. I dont think any of you is arguing that mention of these topics should be removed from this article? Note that by comparison our lede (which is about the length of the EB article) also does not cover the religious implications.TR 07:41, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * There are no religious implications. That's why all the leading, mainstream religious leaders say it is compatible with their religious beliefs. Which means, we are in the realm of religious cosmology, and this is why every source on the parent topic is about religious cosmology. Anyone is free to edit that article (and its child articles Biblical cosmology, creationism, etc.) and add the simple statement "religious leaders believe that the theory of X is compatible with religion Y", but there is really nothing to add to this article.  I've asked for good sources, and in return, all I get is something on the order of "theology can take up the language of science to express and develop the meaning of theological concepts".  That's wonderful, but it has nothing to do with this article.  What we are dealing with here is a classic example of WP:ONEWAY. Viriditas (talk) 08:14, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Please respond to the presented question. You argue that because EB does not discuss the religious implications of the big bang theory neither should Wikipedia. The EB online also does not discuss the FLRW metric, the flatness problem, or dark energy in their article on the big bang theory. Is it than also your position that the Wikipedia article on the big bang theory should not discuss these topics?TR 14:41, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * False equivalence. Science is not equivalent to religion.  EB doesn't discuss religion and the Big Bang because, as with most reliable tertiary and secondary sources, religion has nothing to say. Georges Lemaître himself said there was no conflict, and if there is no conflict, there is no implication, and if there is no implication there is no interpretation, and if there is no interpretation, there is nothing to say. Viriditas (talk) 21:47, 1 March 2012 (UTC)


 * The issue for me is what constitutes due weight WP:RSUW and a neutral point of view WP:NPOV. The big bang has implications for everyone's world view, not just Catholics and not just religious people.  It has connections to many aspects of human culture, including TV, science fiction, academic philosophy, etc.  I think it violates due weight to have a section discussing Catholicism or religion but not all the rest of that - but I don't think we want sections for each of those, as it would make the article too long and harder to read.   Waleswatcher  ( talk ) 14:15, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Although it affects everybody's world view, the impact on christian theology appears to be the most widely discussed in the (english) literature. Due weight requires that the amount of weight we give something is proportional to the weight given in the sources. (Of course, as I mentioned before this may be impart due to a systematic bias of only having access to English sources, while discussion on the impact on Islam for example would primarily appear in Arabic.) That being said the section as currently is may be a bit too detailed on the impact on the catholic world view, while not paying any attention to the impact on other religions. Some refactoring may be in order (while keeping the section short).TR 14:49, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * If we're counting sources in English, I'm willing to bet there's vastly more material on the TV show The Big Bang Theory than there is on the big bang's relation to Catholic theology. So why don't we have a much larger section discussing the impact of the scientific theory on popular culture than we do discussing its impact on religion?  Waleswatcher  ( talk ) 16:48, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * If you look at scholarly sources (as indexed by google scholar) then there are about 200,000 hits for "big bang", there are about 24,000 hits for "big bang"+religion and there are 40 hits for "big bang"+"sheldon cooper". (There are only 22,000 hits for the much wider search "big bang"+television, many of which have to do with television documentaries on the big bang theory.) A similar (but less pronounced) picture emerges for similar searches on google books. So, I think you may be wrong on that bet.TR 17:29, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * "big bang"+sitcom turns up 774, however. i have no horse in this particular sub-debate, i'm just pointing out that using 'sheldon cooper' as a search term is a little bit narrow. Kaini (talk) 17:47, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * "big bang"+(television|movies) turns up 18,800 google scholar hits. Not that that is indicative of anything at all. aprock (talk) 18:52, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * "So, I think you may be wrong on that bet." I don't think I am, see above.  And I'm not sure why you'd search google scholar to gauge the impact on popular culture, or why you'd compare "sheldon cooper" as a search term to "religion".  On google, '"big bang" religion' loses to '"big bang" tv'.  '"big bang" pope' loses to '"big bang" cooper'.  etc.  So do those that support keeping this section also support adding one on TV sitcoms?  If not, why not?  Waleswatcher  ( talk ) 12:05, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I choose to search on scholar because that gives the best likelihood of articles that actually discuss the impact of the big bang theory on religion/popular culture. As you are free to check the hits you get for "big bang"+religion almost exclusively discuss the impact of the big bang theory on religion. In comparison, the widest possible search for articles that would discuss the sitcom, "big bang"+television produces less hits, almost none of which talk about the television show. (Somewhat ironically, on of the first hits is about a television show about the impact of the big bang theory on religion.) The "big bang" + sitcom, does a better job at producing hits that actually discuss the sitcom, however the total number of hits is about a factor 30 less than the hits for "big bang"+religion.
 * The problem with using the normal google search for such a comparison, is that the vast majority of the hits do not even come close to passing the bar for a WP:RS. As such the number of hits is in no way representative of the number of reliable sources that discuss the topic. By searching google books or google scholar you are getting a much better picture of the ratio of the subjects in scholarly literature (which is what we need for reliable sources). TR 14:30, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Certainly not all the hits on a general google search are reliable sources, but neither are those on scholar. Indeed, it's quite possible that many of the hits you found for "big bang" religion say that they big bang is not relevant for religion.  Regardless, it's obvious that the big bang has a notable and significant impact on popular culture in all sorts of different ways.  Not only that, if you look at page views, The Big Bang Theory (the TV show) averages about 50,000 page views/day (and is the 57th most popular article on wikipedia!), while  Religious interpretations of the Big Bang theory averages less than 100.  So I see no justification in your arguments for including a section on religion or theology while excluding a section on that TV show.  Instead, I think neither should be included other than as a "See Also".   Waleswatcher  ( talk ) 15:58, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Please provide some reliable sources that discuss the impact of the big bang theory on popular culture. You find one or two, while just a simple search on scholar of books for big bang and religion immediately produce dozens of high quality sources discussing the implications of the big bang theory for religion. See for a tiny sample my post below.TR 16:35, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Every source in The Big Bang Theory article (of which at a glance there are 90) is a start. But of course that's just one example of dozens or hundreds of pop culture connections.  Here's the third on that list:  "Two nerdy physicists share an apartmen...Like the universe after the big bang, the show's popularity expanded, thanks to..."  Waleswatcher  ( talk ) 17:17, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * None of those sources actually discuss the impact of the big bang theory on popular culture (which what we would need). They just talk about a sitcom called "the big bang theory". So, if thats all you got, then basically the point you have been repeating over and over again is completely moot.TR 11:01, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I know it's difficult following this big conversation, but this has been already answered below. Diego (talk) 11:51, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Indeed, it's very hard to have a coherent exchange in this format. In response to TR, you seem to be focused on something very narrow - scholarly articles that discuss the impact of the big bang on popular culture.   If this article discussed that precise topic, we'd need such sources.  But to instead discuss a specific TV show, all that is required is one or more sources that reliably indicate that the show relates to the main topic of the article.  Even the need for that is dubious, since it's patently obvious that it's true and the show itself is a source  (its name, its characters, the themes of the episodes, etc.).  Once that is established (and that's trivial to do), any reliable source on the show - of which there are thousands - is a valid source for that section of the article.  And this is precisely the problem.  Many, many aspects of popular culture, art, movies, etc. are influenced by the theory, and the argument for the inclusion of religion is no stronger than the argument for their inclusion.  Waleswatcher  ( talk ) 02:26, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * No, we typically do not normally include trivia. If something is included in the article, then we need sources that explicitly discuss how that something relates to the main subject of the article. Without that there is nothing sensible to say about it in this article. Take the sitcom for example, there is no relation to the big bang theory other than the name of the show. In fact, the big bang theory doesn't even get mentioned in the series. So, please stop being dense and pretending that is the same level of coverage, as we have for the impliction of the big bang, where we have entire chapters of books devoted to exactly that subject.TR 08:21, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Nonsense - the vast majority of wikipedia's articles are about "trivia". The show is obviously notable by wiki's standards, and it's obviously connected to the theory.  So far, you've offered not a single argument against its inclusion.  As for "stop being dense", that's insulting.  Please try to assume good faith.  Also, let me again emphasize that I am NOT advocating adding a section on the TV show.  I think that would degrade the article, just as having a section on religions implications degrades the article, which should be about the science and link to this other topics as "see also"s.  Waleswatcher  ( talk ) 22:48, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * A much heard argument for not discussing the religious implications of the big bang theory is that an article about a scientific topic should only discuss the scientific aspects of the subject. Would any of the proponents of the removal of the material care to explain how this statement follows from Wikipedia policy?TR 14:36, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Viriditas has already highlighted that it's a classic case of WP:ONEWAY. Polyamorph (talk) 14:46, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * That argument is only possibly relevant if you are saying that all religions - including mainstream religions - are fringe theories. Is that seriously your position ?? Because that seems to contradict WP:FRINGE. Gandalf61 (talk) 14:53, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * No religion has any basis in fact, so yes. Polyamorph (talk) 15:01, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay, so just to be clear, you are in fact basing your arguments here on your own philosophical POV rather than on Wikipedia's policies. Gandalf61 (talk) 15:10, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * You seem to be rather confused about wikipedia content policy. You are basically arguing that we should ignore what is treated and discussed in reliable sources, and just report on the WP:TRUTH.TR 15:45, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * No, in terms of the scientific theory of the Big Bang, religion is effectively a fringe belief. Not even that since as far as I know none of the religions creation theories are based on this scientific theory. Polyamorph (talk) 15:54, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * You seem to operate under the idea that this is a scientific article about a scientific theory, whereas it is actually an encyclopedic article about a scientific theory. The first discuss only what is relevant to science, the other what is relevant to the topic. This is why intelligent design and creationism are discussed in the Evolution article. Per WP:SUMMARYSTYLE, we should summarize the religious impact the Big Bang had, regardless of the validity (or lack thereof) of religions. The TV show thing mentioned by Waleswatcher is a red herring, as it's completely unrelated to the topic of the Big Bang. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 16:21, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The TV show quite obviously is not "completely unrelated". It is a show about a physicist, it sometimes discusses the scientific theory, it is so-named precisely because of its connection to the theory.  You don't do your side any service by making such patently false statements.  Instead, I think your position is that religion is sufficiently important and relevant to the topic that it should have its own section (rather than just a "see also" link).  To make such an argument you have to face the fact that there are plenty of other non-scientific topics with the same characteristics, so at best your argument is where to draw the line in a grey area - or, you are arguing that the article should include sections on all such topics.   Waleswatcher  ( talk ) 16:33, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not aware of any wiki policy that requires that this section be removed, although I maintain that every justification so far offered for its inclusion applies equally or even more strongly to including a section on the TV show The Big Bang Theory, or on the impact of the big bang on science fiction, etc. As such, the lack of a policy that requires the section be removed is not an argument for its inclusion.  Wikipedia ultimately is about writing good articles that teach people effectively, and that's the true standard one should apply.   Do we really want to clutter this article with al sorts of peripheral, non-scientific topics, when we can simply point to articles on them with a hatnote or "See Also" link?  Waleswatcher  ( talk ) 16:09, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually yes, we want that "clutter", because this article shouldn't be just about the scientific concerns but the cultural ones as well. The detailed scientific description should have its own separate article, keeping this one with a summary style. Diego (talk) 11:02, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * More explicitly, WP:ONEWAY says,
 * "Fringe theories may be mentioned in the text of other articles only if independent reliable sources connect the topics in a serious and prominent way."


 * Here are a couple of completely independent WP:RS's that discuss the implications of the big bang theory for religion in a very prominent way
 * That is a physicist, a philosopher and a bishop, in completely unrelated, well acclaimed sources discussing the implications of the big bang theory for religion. That puts any objection based on WP:ONEWAY out the window.TR 16:24, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Which is exactly why we have and I support the inclusion of such material in the existing article Religious interpretations of the Big Bang theory. However, for the theory of the Big Bang the idea that religion plays any part is fringe theory and WP:ONEWAY is valid argument. Polyamorph (talk) 16:32, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * You say that WP:ONEWAY is a valid arguement. Care to elaborate what part of the WP:ONEWAY guideline is applicable here. The Paul Davies reference I gave, is about the clearest counter example one could have for WP:ONEWAY. We have a noted cosmologist that quite explicitly discuss the implications of the big bang theory on religion. So unless you are somehow arguing that Paul Davies is somehow fringe, I really don't see the basis of your argument here.TR 16:40, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Show me that the majority of sources that discuss the Big Bang as a scientfic theory allude to the fact that it somehow supports the world's religous philosophies then I will agree with you. Since that is not possible it is fringe. Polyamorph (talk) 16:55, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The validity (or lack thereof) of those viewpoints is completely irrelevant to whether or not they should be included in the article. All it matters is that those viewpoints are both significant and widespread. You won't find any biologist thinking Creationism or Intelligent Design have any kind of validity, and yet those are discussed in our Evolution article because those viewpoints, despite being completely senseless, are nonetheless widespread and significant. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 17:05, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * As I said show me that the majority of sources on the Big Bang theory discuss the implications on religion then I will agree. Until then it is fringe. I do agree that there are some notable sources that do discuss the religious implications and it is for that reason that I support the expansion of the Religious interpretations of the Big Bang theory article. However it is not appropriate to include in the Big Bang article for the reasons already stated. I'm also not really interested if "other stuff exists", it doesn't change my opinion on this particular issue.Polyamorph (talk) 17:24, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * That's a ridiculous criteria. This does not require a majority of sources (the majority of sources on Evolution do not discuss creationism/ID either), the only thing required is that a significant ammount of sources do so, and that's already been shown many times now. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 19:23, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * No it's not rediculous criteria, it's just a way I was trying to demonstrate that it is fringe, i.e. most sources do not discuss it, the fraction of those that do are small compared to the fraction that don't. The fact that reliable sources can be found that do deal with the religious implications demonstrates a need for the Religious interpretations of the Big Bang theory but not a section in this article. Polyamorph (talk) 19:28, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree - the disputed section is "FRINGE" Material - notions in religious mythology are not facts - but "Fringe" notions instead - after all, mythological notions are not testable ones - not notions one could verify - notions in religious mythology seem more along the lines of "fairy tales," as suggested recently by Hawking - but not scientific (testable and verifiable) notions - not factual knowledge - and, as such, have no scientific standing in a Science Article, such as the "Big Bang" Science Article - AFAIK - other Wikipedia Science Articles, besides a *very* few, have no non-science "interpretation" or "implication" or "acceptance" section(s) whatsoever - why should the Science Articles on the Big Bang - or Evolution for that matter - be any different? - as before, Science Articles should be "Science Only" - non-science sections (or related) have no place in a quality Science Article imo - this seems to be the Encyclopedia Britannica policy as well - in any regards - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 20:15, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Because, amongst other reason, the subject of the origins of mankind and the origins of the universe are of much greater theological concern and a major theme in nearly all religions (and all mainstream ones), than say, the topic of Josephson junctions or the Krebs cycle. This is why countless discussion on Big Bang and Religion, or Evolution and Religion exist. And that's why these topics (religion and ____) should have a general summary in their main article (Big Bang, Evolution), and it does a disservice to the reader to pretend that either the Big Bang or Evolution had next-to-no impact in philosophy or religion. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 21:18, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Generally concur with Headbomb here. No reason this can't be handled reasonably with proper application of WP:DUE. aprock (talk) 21:22, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Please understand that I Agree that there is a non-science importance to these non-science subjects - but in a non-science article, rather than a Science Article, instead - as before, a simple link to the relevant non-science article in the "See Also" section of a Science Article should be more than sufficient for this imo - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 21:55, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I understand your perspective, but it's not one supported by policy. Sections like Pythagorean theorem which stretch the topic somewhat out of the "pure" rigorous treatment are commonplace and acceptable. aprock (talk) 22:12, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Generally concur with Headbomb here. No reason this can't be handled reasonably with proper application of WP:DUE. aprock (talk) 21:22, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Please understand that I Agree that there is a non-science importance to these non-science subjects - but in a non-science article, rather than a Science Article, instead - as before, a simple link to the relevant non-science article in the "See Also" section of a Science Article should be more than sufficient for this imo - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 21:55, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I understand your perspective, but it's not one supported by policy. Sections like Pythagorean theorem which stretch the topic somewhat out of the "pure" rigorous treatment are commonplace and acceptable. aprock (talk) 22:12, 29 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, I understand that there are such instances (like your example -> a Section on "Pop references to the Pythagorean Theorem" in the main Pythagorean Theorem Article) in some Wikipedia Science Articles - however, I would generally prefer such non-science sections to be elsewhere - for instance, in some separate non-science article (with a link in the "See Also" section of the main Science Article) - rather than in the main Science Article itself - such non-science sections in a Science Article diminishes, rather than enhances, the scientific (and encyclopedic?) Quality of the Science Article imo - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 00:20, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Where did this strange notion that Wikipedia has "science articles" and "non-science articles" come from ? I can't find that anywhere in policies or guidelines. Of course we have articles on scientific topics, but they are not in any sense a different type of article from the rest of the encyclopedia.Gandalf61 (talk) 09:42, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Naturally a scientific article should of course focus on the science, not on some unfounded interpretation of it. Verifiability not truth is a term I see misquoted a lot, it doesn't mean that we should report everything that is verifiable. Rather we use editorial judgement on what is suitable for the specific article, if something is verifiable yet complete nonsense we aren't obliged to include it. Polyamorph (talk) 10:15, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia's policies do not care one jot what you or I or anyone consider to be absolute truth or complete nonsense. The benchmark for inclusion in Wikipedia is notability. It sound as if you are trying to define special standards for articles on scientific topics. This idea has been discussed in the past (see Editing scientific articles) but failed to achieve consensus. Gandalf61 (talk) 10:42, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * If something is patently false yet verifiable then we don't have to include it, no one is forcing us to include knowingly false information. Rather the policy is there to prevent material that is not verifiable from appearing in wikipedia. Something can be true yet unverifiable, in which case we can't include it. It doesn't mean something that is false yet verifiable has to be included. As for notability, that is reason to have it's own article, the notability guidelines deal with articles not content within an article per the first line of WP:Notability "On Wikipedia, notability is a test used by editors to decide whether a topic can have its own article." Polyamorph (talk) 10:52, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * You may believe that you have a hotline to The Truth and that all religions and religious or spiritual views are "patenttly false" and "complete nonsense", but that is your POV - it is tiger thinking. Please stop trying to pretend it has any connection with Wikipedia policy. Gandalf61 (talk) 11:31, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * You have no idea what I believe. Although it is of course fact that no religion or spiritual views have any basis in science or reason. Feel free to provide references that prove otherwise! Science will always stand up (or gratiously fail) to rigourous strutiny. Religion will always fail scrutiny yet stubburnly refuse to concede defeat . But that's beside the point, since I've replied adequately to your comments on what policy dictates we can include without using POV. There is no policy as far as I can see that excludes such content. But conversely there is no policy that dictates it must be included simply because it's verifiable. You point about notability applies to articles as a whole, not sections within an article. You may or may not be aware that I accept that we should have an article on the religious interpretations of the Big Bang. But I don't agree that a section in the article on the scientific theory requires one by any wikipedia policy. Finally please don't quote essays, they are not policy or guidlines and quite frankly irrelevant - my POV has nothing to do with it.Polyamorph (talk) 11:52, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * "It is of course fact that no religion or spiritual views have any basis in science or reason". Really ?? There are many notable and respected sources that argue otherwise. In Christianity, for example, there is a long tradition of Christian apologetics, in which writers from Thomas Aquinas to C. S. Lewis present a rational basis for Christain beliefs. The fact that you dismiss all these authors out of hand because you disagree wth their conclusions is as ignorant as it is arrogant. Gandalf61 (talk) 12:27, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * You'll notice that the comment was small - since you attacked me I declared my POV. However it has no bearing on the discussion. Neither does your attack that my views are arrogant. Since you no longer want to discuss the policy (no doubt because you are wrong) and instead resort to personal attacks I have no more comments to make. Polyamorph (talk) 12:33, 1 March 2012 (UTC)


 * NOTE User:Viriditas, who favours the deletion of the section, recently nominated the main article for deletion and now just blanked the contents of the main article, supplanting it with the section here (which is contrary to the consensus present at this point). This issue needs to be investigated further. Thanks, AnupamTalk 17:31, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * This is not the proper venue. Take any concerns you have to WP:ANI. aprock (talk) 19:15, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * There is no apparent concerns, it was a legimate prod which was then removed also in a legimate move, I don't see why it has any bearing here. IRWolfie- (talk) 19:47, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * See also: Talk:Religious_interpretations_of_the_Big_Bang_theory Viriditas (talk) 05:00, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Are we making a storm in a teacup?
reviewing the extensive (and kinda fascinating) discussion here since the RfC was opened, it seems that we're all in agreement to a degree; does religious interpretation of the big bang theory deserve a mention in the article? - the majority of us seem to agree that it does, but the extent of the mention seems to be the bone of contention here. so i suggest we concentrate on how brief and get away from quoting policies and going in circles. does it deserve a hatnote? a sentence? a paragraph? at the moment Religious interpretations of the Big Bang theory is a kinda shitty article. let's just agree on how much of a mention it deserves here, and then we can get on with the more important job of improving that article and helping to make an excellent online encyclopaedia for the world. my 2c. Kaini (talk) 02:44, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Mention of the disputed section as a link in the "See Only" section only- as noted in my earlier posts - hope that helps - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 03:41, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Make it brief, keep it a subarticle -- as noted above from my previous inidcation, so that would be a paragraph or two, with a main in its section, as more or less, it is now (except less Christianity focused, and more generalized). 70.24.251.71 (talk) 05:08, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * This is why the phrase "...and if so, how much space is appropriate to devote to that topic" is in the RFC question. To avoid making closing this any harder than it's already going to be, I respectfully suggest adding opinions about that to the "brief statements" section, rather than starting an entirely new section. Indeed, I'm wondering why people wouldn't already have stated them there (it's half of the RFC question, folks). --Christopher Thomas (talk) 06:11, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I disagree that it's needed and would prefer just a link in the see also section. However, consensus seems to require a brief mention. So I suggest keep the current title "Theological acceptance" and remove the middle section re: the Pope. i.e. the text (as copied from the current section) should be:

"The Big Bang is a scientific theory, and as such is dependent on its agreement with observations. But as a theory which addresses the origins of reality, it has always carried theological implications, most notably, those based upon the philosophical[87][88] concept of creation ex nihilo (a Latin phrase meaning 'out of nothing').[89][90][91][92][93] Since the acceptance of the Big Bang as the dominant physical cosmological paradigm, there have been a variety of reactions by religious groups as to its implications for their respective religious cosmologies. Some accept the scientific evidence at face value, while others seek to reconcile the Big Bang with their religious tenets, and others completely reject or ignore the evidence for the Big Bang theory.[97]" Don't mention any specific religions in the section, that can be dealt with in the Religious interpretations article. I absolutely oppose the use of a hatnote. This is a scientific theory, the religious implications are only an afterthought. Polyamorph (talk) 09:20, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * That seems more or less acceptable to me. I am not particular a fan of the title "Theological acceptance". I have two issues:
 * 1) The term theology (although it can be used for the study of religion in general) carries a strong connotation to the Christian theology. As such, it suggests that it is only about Christian acceptance of the theory.
 * 2) The suggested text also mentions that some religious groups reject the theory. As such "acceptance" may be a slight misnomer for the section.
 * I would suggest "Religious implications"as the title for the section. This also opens the door for adding a sentence to represent the view of some scientists (e.g. Paul Davies and Carl Sagan), that the Big Bang theory, makes the idea of a creator superfluous and obsolete. (Also as mentioned, below the references used for the section could use a critical review, as the proposed one paragraph section is overreferenced.)TR 12:03, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, Religious implications works well for me and your point about adding the view of scientists is a good one.Polyamorph (talk) 13:52, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I think that's a significant improvement over the current wording, and "Religious implications" is a fine title. I'd prefer to remove the section entirely, but this may be the best compromise.  Waleswatcher  ( talk ) 02:23, 2 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I think one or two sentences for each of the major religions on the religious acceptance would be good for the second paragraph. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:49, 2 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Although, that is fine in theory, it might prove troublesome in practice. Some potential issues,
 * What religions are you going to include? That list might grow quite long, especially if you are going to distinguish major denominations as well. (This might prove especially troublesome in the long run, as editors passing by try to add the stance of their favorite religion.
 * In centralistic religions such as the Catholic church, it is relatively easy to assign one official position. This might prove more difficult with religions with no central authority, as the actual stance might vary among the various dogmatic scholars of the denomination.
 * In the light of these issues, I think it maybe wise to just close the section with the remark, that various religious groups have welcomed the Big Bang theory with open arms, while others utterly reject it. (Of course supported by references that back this up.) And leave the further details on the stance of various religions to the main article. If we want, we could add one explicit example to flesh out this remark. If we do, we should state clearly that this is an example. If we do, the example of the early acceptance of the theory by the pope may be the most notable. (Precisely, because it came so early.) However, I don't think this is completely necessary. (Although, I also wouldn't have any objections).TR 12:17, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Good points. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:26, 5 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I oppose mention of specific religions, simply because if you include one you should include them all. It is much better to simply state that the implications on religious viewpioints and let the main article deal with the specifics. Polyamorph (talk) 12:26, 2 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Obviously nonsense. We don't have to "include them all". A section on religious implications that did not mention specific religions would be so vague and general as to be meaningless. Gandalf61 (talk) 10:50, 5 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Objections were raised above to including specific religions, respond to the points in the objection. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:15, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Of course it's not nonsense. It's clearly non NPOV if we include only catholic and protestant faith's, in which case we need to include Islamic and hindu views etc. I am opposed to inclusion of the section whatsoever. However, if consensus decides it should be included then I oppose the inclusion of specific for the reason's stated above, summarised by TR. I'd appreciate it if you didn't call other users opinions on the matter as "nonsense". Polyamorph (talk) 10:57, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think its in violation of WP:NPOV to use a specific religion as an explicit example. Especially, if we are explicit about it being an example, and that there are other religious groups with views that may or may not differ on the subject. (The main article should cover all views, as far as they are covered in the literature.) The impact of the big bang on Catholic theology, appears to be the most prominently discussed in the literature (although there are some obvious caveats with respect to sources on Muslim, Hindu or Boedhist theology not necessarily being available in English), as such using just that as an example would also fall within the normal bounds of due weight. Nonetheless, I also stress again, that I don't think mentioning specific religions is absolutely necessary. (Although, it may be beneficial to the exposition.TR 11:26, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I can see your case for having one specific example, clearly defined as an example. However, I am nevertheless against inclusion of any mention of a specific religious group. By mentioning a specific group give undue weight towards a specific religious ideology. It's fine to discuss in the main interpretations article but simply not necessary here. Besides there is no consensus in the current RfC for expansion of the section to include this specific information, in fact several editors who support inclusion of the section support a brief section only with no mention of specific religions.Polyamorph (talk) 12:30, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Surely the words "For example ..." in the text that you have deleted clearly identified it as an example. And your notion that WP:NPOV says "if you include one you should include them all" is still obvious nonsense. Many religions may not have any published stance on the Big Bang at all, yet to say "Religion X has no opinion about the Big Bang. Religion Y has no opinion about the Big Bang...." would be absurd. Gandalf61 (talk) 12:43, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Clearly you didn't read my comment: "I can see your case for having one specific example...However, I am nevertheless against inclusion of any mention of a specific religious group..." is what I said. I will not support the inclusion of information on any specific religious group as it gives them undue weight. Polyamorph (talk) 12:46, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Any Christian reference to the acceptance/rejection of the 'big bang' ideology should be removed in its entirety and this is speaking as a Christian.It is not a question as to whether 'big bang' as an ideology is right or wrong but of logical consistency.Conclusions based on the assertion that the oldest galaxies are those observed to be furthest away in a smaller Universe lead to a logically consistent conclusion that the youngest galaxies are the nearest in an larger Universe,again,this is not an attempt to disprove 'big bang' but point out where logical consistency leads to an absurdity.Gkell1 (talk) 10:53, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you are saying. Do you have any policy based reasons? IRWolfie- (talk) 10:28, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Quick question (and pardon if it has already been answered) but are these sections considered due weight in this article? It doesn't discuss the subject but how the subject pertains to other things, which in my view would be like saying how gravity affects a rubber ball.  Yes gravity does work on a rubber ball but you would be departing from meaningful work on the gravity article.  Likewise in this section the religious views aren't helping to define the article but are instead trying to show how it works on the religious side of the house. Tivanir2 (talk) 13:05, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Bad analogy. A better one would be discussing the ethical implications of human cloning in the human cloning article.TR 13:25, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * It's not the best analogy, but Tivanir2 has a good point. If this article discusses religion, why doesn't it discuss all the other aspect of human culture the big bang theory affects?  As I've argued above in other comments there are many such topics, and there can be no argument against their inclusion if this section is kept.  On the contrary, due weight would seem to require their inclusion.  At that point, the article would be significantly degraded from its current state.   The solution is simple - make this article about the scientific theory only.   Waleswatcher  ( talk ) 15:55, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Give one example of an other aspect of human culture that is significantly affected by the Big Bang theory, and which is discussed significantly in scholarly literature.TR 21:24, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Why is it relevant that it be "discussed significantly in scholarly literature"?  That's not wikipedia's standard for anything.   Waleswatcher  ( talk ) 06:42, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, that is basically what WP:UNDUE requires, since all other points covered in the article have significant coverage in scholarly sources. But all the same I challenge you to provide any WP:RS that explicitly discusses the impact of the Big Bang theory an other aspect of human culture. You have been asserting that if we include the impact of the big bang theory on religion we should include the impact on other aspects of human culture. The crux here is, that while the impact of the big bang theory on religion is discussed in thousands of reliable sources, the impact of the big bang theory on other aspects of human culture is discussed in a handful of sources at most.TR 10:16, 7 March 2012 (UTC)


 * You already asked me that question, and it was already answered. You've been provided with hundreds of reliable sources.  For example, every source for the The Big Bang Theory article, plus thousands of google scholar sources (see Diego Moya's comment below, or the comments above from the last time you asked this).   Waleswatcher  ( talk ) 05:06, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * A Google Scholar search for "Big bang"+education returns 38.600 results (more than "big bang"+religion), and that's for education alone; hardly "a handful of sources". Every science divulgation book or TV show is a source for how the theory is presented to the public. Every textbook covering the Big Bang has impact on culture, so every official curricula design is a source for the impact of the theory on culture. The Big Bang is one of the most well-known scientific results in cosmology, much well understood than quantum or string theories or even relativity. Surely that public understanding has come from some reliable sources? How can you say that impact on human culture is unsourced or undue weight? Diego (talk) 12:47, 7 March 2012 (UTC) (P.S. "big bang" metaphor -god -religion returns a well-directed query covering the idea of a Big Bang as a sudden start of a process in many different contexts). Diego (talk) 12:56, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * What you are proposing is the a classical case of WP:SYNTH. In order to write about this subject in this article, Wikipedia requires a source to presents the conclusions (in this case what kind of impact the big bang theory has made on popular culture) that actually draws that conclusion. Any attempt to infer a conclusion from multiple source is against Wikipedia policy. So, I'll repeat my request: "Please produce a source that explicitly discusses how the Big Bang theory has impacted popular culture". If not, it is not a suitable topic to write about on Wikipedia.TR 14:27, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * No, I'm suggesting that we create a section for "the Big Bang on education" using Big Bang and education reliable sources; that we create a section for the "Big Bang as a metaphor" using the existing reliable sources on this second topic; etc. This is in no way different than creating a "Big Bang and religion" section from the Big Bang+Religion sources. Diego (talk) 15:08, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, for each of those give me one good source on which you could actually base a section.TR 15:19, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll work through the sources I provided above, to expand the article in those directions. Everybody is invited to join. Diego (talk) 10:57, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

The guidelines for the 'Talk' section dictate that the validity or invalidity of 'big bang' is outside discussion however the issue is its internal logical consistency hence there is no violation of the guidelines.No Christian organization could knowingly support something which is totally devoid of spacial awareness as 'big bang' hence withdrawing the religious implications section is tantamount to religious disassociation with 'big bang' and rightfully so.I agree with Waleswatcher that the section should be removed but the reasons he gives I disagree with as the extended conclusion based on oldest galaxies/smaller Universe via logical consistency generates a completely illogical picture which no religious person could associate with.A mysterious Universe is one thing,an impossible Universe is something completely different.Gkell1 (talk) 21:44, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Change whole article focus
The religion issue is a red herring and mudding the debate. The main article about the Big Bang should not be devoted uniquely to the scientific description (the particular details should be in a sub-article) but about how the theory has influenced the world at large; Big Bang theory should be the article with the scientific payload, not a redirect to this one. It should include how Einstein was worried about the cosmological constant and the possibility of a non-static universe, how the greeks anticipated the concept with the notion of a cyclic cosmology, explaining its relations with other competing models, showing how the Big Bang is portrayed in popular culture (beyond the sitcom), etc. If we include all these topics, the religious interpretations are but one more topic to cover with proper due weight. Diego (talk) 10:49, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I think that some of what you mention is relevant to the pre-existing History and development section? Also I'm not sure how much the Big Bang has influenced popular culture, at least in terms of cite-able literature? Cheers Polyamorph (talk) 11:31, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Someone has already cited the sitcom ;-) Note that I'm not talking only about popular culture; it could other directions of expansion that are only covered briefly or not at all, such as the relation with other ancient and modern models or the popular depiction as "points on a balloon" can be further elaborated; the  COBE, Hubble and WMAP could get much more than one sentence for all three. Yes, some of them could be included in the current History or Speculative physics sections; I'm also proposing to expand those. I'm sure any book of history of science like Asimov's or Hawkins' and all university-level physics texbooks can be used as references. Diego (talk) 11:39, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

(In response to my comment above:)—Geremia (talk) 02:19, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I like that suggestion. Regards, RJH (talk) 15:38, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The quotes from the sources seem to only mention theological implications. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:49, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I did add some philosophy to that section (called then "Theological implications"), but User:IRWolfie- moved it to the History and development section.—Geremia (talk) 02:19, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with the red herring remark and also with the storm-in-teacup idea. I do not think that the current paragraph in the article is either obtrusive or misleading. It certainly is inadequate to cover the subject, but any reasonable coverage would dominate and distort the article unacceptably. Best include a list of Wikilinks without comment to as many articles as interested parties request, and leave it at that. Since you definitely cannot please everyone, do the least to get everyone's backs up. If they want to say more on the subject, let them link to where they say it -- elsewhere. The most important thing is to keep the science in, as accessibly as possible, with as little distraction and distortion as may be. As for the restructuring of the whole article -- maybe, maybe not. Splitting the subject into internally sound, coherently linked articles is often the best way of going about such things, but not absolutely essential. That is a matter to be settled in the usual good-faith manner.  JonRichfield (talk) 06:41, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I think the cultural impact of the Big Bang theory should be a subarticle, and not the main article. The main article should be the theory. 70.24.251.71 (talk) 05:35, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
 * That seems against the WP:TECHNICAL guideline, and maybe also against neutrality. Can you explain why that is preferred to, say, a separate Scientific explanation of the Big Bang article which gets a summary version here? Diego (talk) 10:05, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Most people searching for "Big Bang" will be looking for the scientific theory (or the tv sitcom), and thus the science should be the primary focus of the this (primary) article. -- Kheider (talk) 23:48, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * True, but the article should provide a gentle introduction to the science, not up to the last minutiae before discussing other relevant topics. Diego (talk) 00:05, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * What is the big bang? The Big Bang is a moniker coined (to denegrate) for a theory of the creation of the universe. You're stating that the theory is not the Big Bang, but the cultural phenomenon is the Big Bang. This puts the cart before the horse. Is gravity a cultural phenomenon or a physical force? Is the cod a fish or is it a cultural phenomenon? Surely the collapse of cod stocks have had major cultural impact, but it is a fish. 70.24.251.71 (talk) 06:01, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Not exactly. I'm stating that the name "Big Bang" refers to both the physical phenomenon and the moniker coined for it, and thus a well balanced encyclopedic article should cover both. Diego (talk) 06:28, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

I've moved the religion and philosophy to a subsection of history-and-development, following the WP:UPFRONT guideline. This should also help to keep this section small and within due weight. Diego (talk) 10:15, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Big Bang is an exceptional ideology rather than a theory,it asserts as a principle that observers can see the evolutionary timeline of the Universe directly and no other evolutionary discipline from geology to biology supports anything other than a passive interpretation of evolution such as the evolutionary story told by rock strata (geology) or fossil records (biology).This 'big bang' is a conceptual monstrosity of the highest order and it should be actively countered rather than supported.Gkell1 (talk) 19:24, 12 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Gk: You are trolling us, aren't you? In case you are not, regret to inform: apart from being strictly and unacceptably POV, your categorisations are not even meaningful in terms of science. (Countering or supporting indeed!) There is nothing ideological in BB theory; it may be partly right, partly wrong, or partly at a tangent with reality; it might even turn out to be meaningless, and there may be thousands of rival workers in the field ready to bloody each other's noses in disagreement on every aspect of every point, but if so, that does not make the body of BB theory ideological. Ideology of that type belongs in political or religious dogma or doctrine, not science. It is a pity that you do not understand science; you utterly miss the point. If you did understand it would not only save you a lot of energy and frustration, but it would save some of the rest of us a lot of time. I offer you a helpful tip, free, and valuable to boot (though I doubt you will avail yourself of it): Study the science of the matter till you can see why what you said was nonsense, and stay out of the discussion in the mean time. Some of the energy you save will be your own. JonRichfield (talk) 19:58, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

I have already indicated that 'big bang as a proposal has to be judged by its internal logical consistency and it fails in the most spectacular way which leaves the remaining issue - why the wider population mistake conceptual impossibilities for intellectual elitism.I am not incensed by the big bangers,I am livid with denominational Christianity for allowing something so hideous as 'big bang' to gain momentum as a concept among the people of this era.Gkell1 (talk) 18:33, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 *  Forget it. My mistake. Should have known better... JonRichfield (talk) 19:04, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Sigh all you like,nothing can save big bangers from the internal logic of their own propositions so it is not a matter as to whether 'big bang' is wrong but rather how far you will go to maintain something that defies common sense.Gkell1 (talk) 07:51, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Winnie-the-Church defined a fanatic in terms of something like: "Someone who can't change his mind and won't change the subject." He was quite a quipper, our Winnie. Observant too. Look, I don't much like the BB theory, even today, but that does not mean that it makes sense to trash the article. If you want to supplant it with something better, you may do so with my full approval (lucky you!) But you will not achieve it by shouting this article down, nor even by shouting down this talk page. That is not how it works. Keep that style for the TV-evangelist tents. So far the score is: Sighing 1, Shouting 0. If you want to achieve anything, first formulate your crushing proofs in terms that suggest that you have the faintest understanding of the nature of the subject under debate, then that you have some understanding of the argument, then find a forum where you can present your cogent argument(s) and alternative proposals, then return, not to this article, but to your brand-new article on the Unsteady-state theory or whatever you decide to call it, and sit back and wait for a phone call from the Nobel committee. Until then  (Shouting 0, Sighs 2!) (Oh sorry, and Winnie 1; mustn't forget Winnie!) JonRichfield (talk) 08:51, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The policy WP:OR comes to mind as does WP:DNFTT.Polyamorph (talk) 08:59, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Religious books from minor publishers
It seems religious books from minor religious publishers were inserted verify the statement "But as a theory which addresses the origins of reality, it has always carried theological implications,...". Are these suitable sources for the statement? and the slightly related; do we need these references considering better references verify the statement? diff: IRWolfie- (talk) 11:10, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * This statement is clearly over referenced. Given the availability of some very high profile sources which can be used to support this claim, I suggest to pick one (or at most two) to support this statement. The others can be moved to the religious interpretations of the big bang article, to support more detailed statements about various viewpoints. In particular, I would suggest the Tom Frame reference given above.TR 11:47, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

These were the objections raised by User:Gandalf61 who reverted my edits:. InterVarsity Press and Rowman_%26_Littlefield do appear small time less than a handful of notable books. There is no reason to rely on these less reliable sources when we have mainstream sources available in use. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:10, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed, use the mainstream sources. Polyamorph (talk) 15:49, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Since no further objections were raised I've removed the sources. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:40, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Placement of "Religious and philosophical interpretations" section
It should go to the bottom. The focus of the article is the science. Cultural aspects are worth noting, but they are not the main focus of the article. They are kind of "oh by the way...". I can also point out that "Cultural impact" sections in other science articles seem to go last. Evolution is an example. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 22:11, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The best way to achieve that would be to create a new article with the complete and detailed scientific contents so that this article could have some reasonably short scientific sections; then those could be the first ones. WP:TECHNICAL definitely requires to make the article accessible to the widest audience of readers; the current scientific section are too dense and technical for that. Also note that Evolution has a twin introduction article that does exactly this, but Big Bang doesn't have it so they are not comparable right now. Diego (talk) 22:45, 13 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree that it should continue to be located at the end of the article. The stated reason for re-introducing this change after it was reverted was compliance with WP:UPFRONT, which doesn't support this reorganization. The purpose of UPFRONT is to have plain-language explanations of a topic come before more detailed text, but it does not support moving discussion of related topics ahead of discussion of the topic itself simply because those sections are easier to understand. The article is about the Big Bang; related interpretations and impacts of the subject should come after the discussion of the subject itself.--Trystan (talk) 23:22, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I can understand that, but then the current main sections that explain the topic are not compliant with the rest of the WP:TECHNICAL guideline. And WP:UPFRONT (also called "Put the most understandable parts of the article up front") doesn't say that the main topic should exhaustively covered before changing the subject (quite the contrary), only that people should already have read the simple non-technical ones by the time they stop reading. This suggest an structure of a short introduction to the science, (just like the lead and history do, although a short scientific "general description" would make sense here), then all the other accessible sections, then the highly technical ones. If the religion&philosophy and the other suggested "culture" sections are not near the top, at least they should be at the middle. Diego (talk) 00:00, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

I looked on here after a few weeks to see what happened... More discussion... Anyway, I agree with Harizotoh and think this article is about science and not religion. I hence voted for a "small bang" mention for religion - 2 sentences at most. But seriously I think if there is too much religion in a science article, it will affect donations in the long term, as Wikipedia begins to look less and less credible. There are already serious credibility problems, no need to add to them. History2007 (talk) 21:40, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I absolutely agree with this. Right now almost everything in the religious section past the first sentence is highly questionable and involves lots of cherry picking. Most (I'm sure nearly all) theoretical physicists view the big bang theory as a scientific theory which does not implicate theism. There is no justification for mentioning the "Kalām cosmological argument" here -- it is completely peripheral to this article, and the steady state theory was rejected in favor of the Big Bang theory on scientific not religious grounds. If there is a place for these topics it should be in the linked article on religious interpretations of the big bang not here.Jkhwiki (talk) 01:59, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I also agree that the religion section is highly questionable and peripheral to the subject of this article. Even the Catholic priest who came up with the theory stated it has no theological implications. There's clearly no consensus for anything but a very brief mention in this article, way down at the bottom. I've cut it back substantially, and would support deleting the section entirely. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 03:20, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I also agree that it is difficult to make any decisions about the section in its current state. I'm not sure what we mean when we say that it "carries theological implications regarding the concept of creation ex nihilo." Are we saying that the Big Bang theory suggests creation ex nihilo? - because it doesn't. Even more inscrutable is the claim that "the Kalām cosmological argument rests in the concepts of the Big Bang" - yet this is a medieval theological argument; how can it 'rest in' a modern scientific theory? Ultimately, it will be very difficult to draft a meaningful summary section (avoiding the cherry picking we currently have) without substantial work going into the Religious interpretations of the Big Bang theory. I think Dominus' trimming is a good start.--Trystan (talk) 05:02, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * This issue should not be independently discussed as it pertains to the current RfC. Thus far, SIX individuals in the RfC have stated that the section should be expanded. Trying to form a separate consensus here is not respecting the wishes of other editors. If you have an opinion, voice it in the RfC and then wait until it closes rather than prematurely trimming the section. Thanks, AnupamTalk 05:48, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Six editors out of 45 who have commented on the RfC hardly represents consensus. It's fine to comment here so as not to distract from the main RfC discussion. Moreover stop prematurely editing the article to expand the section until the RfC is closed and consensus is decided.Polyamorph (talk) 07:23, 17 March 2012 (UTC)


 * 6 editors out of 7 still wouldn't represent consensus if there reasonings weren't policy based, consensus isn't about voting. The RfC has closed now, and it seems to agree with the section being in it's trimmed back form. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:18, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

The Big Bang Theory, as referred to by great minds, turns out to be a tv show, only in wikipedia!
Is wikipedia turning into the "American television watchers' encyclopedia"

Requested move closed by editor who has clear conflict of interest: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:The_Big_Bang_Theory#Requested_move — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.94.204.129 (talk) 04:35, 14 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Personally I actually did first accidentally go to the tv show when I was aiming for this article. I find it bizarre that it's not disambiguated. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:00, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * It is disambiguated. Each primary topic has a hatnote to the other for disambiguation. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:30, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Big_Bang_Theory_(disambiguation). Polyamorph (talk) 14:31, 14 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I took a quick look, that discussion is so chaotic, it would take 20 minutes to figure out the subsections. So I will make my point here and move on: The TV show will be forgotten much before the theory. TV shows come and go, so do not get over worked on that issue. In an "encyclopedia" science comes first, when a scientific topic is being discussed. I will look again in 2 or 3 weeks to see what happened. History2007 (talk) 21:48, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Erik Verlinde's theory
Erik Verlinde proposed another theory, see here. He argues that his theory is more logical, and it does not feature any "big bang". 91.182.115.165 (talk) 09:14, 23 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Blogs aren't reliable sources. It's also probably undue for this main article. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:38, 29 March 2012 (UTC)


 * FWIW - I agree w/ IRWolfie- - nonetheless, Erik Verlinde's notions seem similar to those posted by physicist Sean Carroll - see here -> ("Universe Out Of Chaos"/Cosmic Variance) (if interested, I contributed a few comments to the related discussion) - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 18:47, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Edit request
In the Overview section, change

to

The citation needed tag is a little weird considering the name of the Big Bang nucleosynthesis article makes the statement rather obvious.

24.215.188.24 (talk) 01:17, 2 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Tried to add the ref but my attempt could have gone better - perhaps someone more exp w/ this would like to try? - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 01:45, 2 April 2012 (UTC)


 * ✅ Second go-round w/ this seems to have gone well - hopefully, the ref is entirely ok for this note - perhaps someone w/ access to the ref can verify? - Thanks in any regards - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 01:59, 2 April 2012 (UTC)


 * @24.215.188.24 - Brief followup - Thank you for the suggested edit to the note - besides some minor modifications to the proposed edit, a link to the Big Bang nucleosynthesis article was also added to the note - hope this is *all* entirely ok - Thanks again - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 14:16, 2 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I turned off the template, since the request seems to have been handled. Please feel free to re-enable it if you have additional concerns. Thanks!   &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 06:55, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Although, I can't check the source, I suspect (going of the remarks of the IP above) that it does not quite cover the claims made in the note. The note make two claimes Both need to be backed up by a source. If my suspicion is the correct, the cited source will only confirm that some sources (i.e. Steven Weinberg) include Big Bang nucleosynthesis as part of "the Big Bang". Of course, I may be wrong, So confirmation is needed what the source actually says. (At any length, the ref needs a page number) TR 08:23, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) People disagree about the actual period which should be labelled as "the Big Bang".
 * 2) Most view points include Big Bang nucleosynthesis  as part of the Big Bang.

Towards a consensus on the content of the religious implications section.
With the RFC over, a consensus has been established that there should a section on the religious implications of the big bang theory, albeit a short one. Unfortunately, all the edit warring has left the current section in a rather sorry state. Lets try to find a text that works for everybody. Based on the past versions of the section (in particular the version suggested earlier by user:polyamorph) I suggest the following one paragraph text:

Religious and philosophical implications (DRAFT 1)
The Big Bang is a scientific theory, and as such is dependent on its agreement with observations. But as a theory which addresses the origins of reality, it has had significant implications for religion and philosophy. In particular, the theory suggests that the universe had a beginning which to some implies creation ex nihilo (out of nothing). As a result, the Big Bang theory has become one of the central subjects in the discourse on the relation between science and religion. Some religious groups, such as the Roman Catholic Church, have actively embraced the Big Bang as compatible with their view of creation, while others, such as Young Earth Creationists, completely reject the concept. On the other hand, some physicists such as Paul Davies and Carl Sagan have argued that Big Bang cosmology has made the notion of a creator superfluous.

Religious and philosophical implications (DRAFT 2)
The Big Bang is a scientific theory, and as such is dependent on its agreement with observations. But as a theory which addresses the origins of reality it carries theological implications regarding the concept of creation ex nihilo (a Latin phrase meaning "out of nothing"); according to the Oxford professor Peter Harrison, discussions of the Big Bang's religious implications "constitute one of the liveliest areas of contemporary science-religion interchange." Since the acceptance of the Big Bang as the dominant physical cosmological paradigm, there have been a variety of reactions by religious groups as to its implications for their respective religious cosmologies. For example, many theologians and physicists have viewed the Big Bang as implicating theism; a popular philosophical argument for the existence of God known as the Kalām cosmological argument rests in the concepts of the Big Bang. As such, the Big Bang was not welcomed by some individuals, because unlike the Steady State theory, the Big Bang proposed that the universe had a beginning. For example, under the state atheism espoused by the Soviet Union as well as that of Mao Zedong during the Cultural Revolution, the Big Bang was irrevocably opposed as the origin of the universe. Moreover, the Soviet government altered the very definition of the science of cosmology in order to support a materialistic worldview: the official definition of cosmology was altered so as to include the word "infinite" in order to support the theory of a steady state universe, in which the universe would not have a beginning. In light of the philosophical implications of the Big Bang, Fred Hoyle, also did not accept the Big Bang, preferring a model that did not have a single epoch of creation.

Religious and philosophical implications (DRAFT 3)
The Big Bang is a scientific theory, and as such is dependent on its agreement with observations. Some physicists, such as Paul Davies, Stephen Hawking and Carl Sagan, have suggested that the Big Bang is a consequence of the laws of physics alone and that the notion of a creator is unnecessary. (also see The Grand Design)

Discussion
This covers most of the essentials backed-up by reliable sources. A possible issue with this proposed text is that all the mention examples are Christian ones. The reason for this is that the christian views on the Big Bang are the easiest to source. However, it would be better if we could mention a non-christian example of an explicit stance on the matter. So if anybody can find a source?TR 10:59, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Your proposal looks good to me. I agree that mentioning a non-christian example would be good, perhaps the sentence from Religious interpretations of the Big Bang theory "Many Muslim commentators have stated that there are references in the Qur'an to the Big Bang." which is cited to [Diane Morgan (2010) Essential Islam: a comprehensive guide to belief and practice] and [Helaine Selin (1997) Encyclopædia of the history of science, technology, and medicine in non-western cultures] - although I agree that isn't an overly explicit example. Polyamorph (talk) 12:50, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

User:TimothyRias, it might be better to add some of these specific views of different religions to the Religious interpretations of the Big Bang theory. Also in regards to Paul Davies, he is also known to have stated, with regards to the Big Bang, that "It may seem bizarre, but in my opinion, science offers a surer path to God than religion" (reference). What do you think about adding some of the more general information on the theological and philosophical implications that was in this version of the article? Also should there be any mention of the fact that the Big Bang was suppressed under the state atheism of Communist régimes because of its perceived theistic implications (reference, reference)? Should we mentioned that Fred Hoyle rejected the Big Bang for the same reasons (reference, reference)? These are all relevant things to think about. In addition, if you insist on adding "On the other hand, some physicists such as Paul Davies and Carl Sagan have argued that Big Bang cosmology has made the notion of a creator superfluous", you might want to balance the statement with the fact that "many other physicists have viewed the Big Bang as implicating theism" (reference, reference). I have added some information and references above; feel free to consider using the content and references when making a revision. I hope this helps. With regards, AnupamTalk 12:53, 21 March 2012 (UTC)


 * FWIW - Per My Earlier Comments Posted Above -> I Continue To Support A Link To This Material In The "See Also" Section Only - However, In View Of A "Consensus" To Maintain A Brief Paragraph, I Would Suggest The Following:



Religious and philosophical implications (DRAFT 3)
The Big Bang is a scientific theory, and as such is dependent on its agreement with observations. Some physicists, such as Paul Davies, Stephen Hawking and Carl Sagan, have suggested that the Big Bang is a consequence of the laws of physics alone and that the notion of a creator is unnecessary. (also see The Grand Design)

Religious and philosophical implications discussion, cont.
I think Draft 1 does an excellent job of providing a clear, thorough, and well-sourced overview of the topic, and would support its introduction into the article. My tastes lean towards brevity, but Drafts 3 & 3a are a little too lean even for me. Draft 2 has some content of questionable relevance, such as the vague wording about the Kalam argument, and the views of those famed cosmologists, Mao and Stalin.--Trystan (talk) 02:55, 3 April 2012 (UTC)


 * User:Drbogdan, the consensus of the RfC held above was to keep the following statement in the article and as a result, this content should be retained:


 * Nevertheless, we can still build on that, if that is what the community desires. If we are to mention the views of specific physicists, we must mention perspectives from others, who differ from the individuals you mentioned such as John Polkinghorne, Owen Gingerich, Gerald Gabrielse (believe that the Big Bang implicates theism) and Fred Hoyle (rejected the Big Bang based on its theistic implications). Offering the opinions of only three physicists who believe that the Big Bang says nothing about a Creator creates a dichotomy between religion and science here, which is not the case, since many physicists share the belief that it does say something about a Creator. In my opinion, adding the views of specific physicists to the main article, Religious interpretations of the Big Bang theory, would be a better idea. Nevertheless, I am willing to compromise here, granted that you mention the views of the other physicists I mentioned here. I hope this helps. With regards, AnupamTalk 05:29, 3 April 2012 (UTC)


 * The RfC consensus was to have a brief section, but I don't see anything in the question or outcome that locks us in to the wording you describe. The statement as fact that the Big Bang theory "carries theological implications regarding the concept of creation ex nihilo" is particularly problematic, as it implies 1) that the Big Bang was creation ex nihilo, and 2) that it necessarily has theological implications, rather than that being the opinion of some theologians.--Trystan (talk) 14:00, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to see the first line "The Big Bang is a scientific theory, and as such is dependent on its agreement with observations" go away. Other than that I can support 3 or 3a —ArtifexMayhem (talk) 06:11, 3 April 2012 (UTC)


 * @Anupam - Thank you for your comments - seems that, based on the official RFC consensus conclusions regarding the disputed section, a brief section is to be kept - or, in the actual words of the RFC consensus conclusions, to "keep a section on religious interpretations of the Big Bang" and "kept to a limited stature" - Seems "Draft 3" and "Draft 3A" are consistent with these RFC consensus conclusions as far as I can see - there does not seem to be any mention whatsoever of the actual wordings (including the actual "statement" you highlighted above) in the RFC consensus conclusions.
 * @ArtifexMayhem - I have no investment in the first sentence (or any particular sentence in "Draft 3" or "Draft 3A" - after all, my original preference was for a "See Also" mention only for the disputed section). Accordingly, omitting the first sentence - as well as the sentence re the physicists - in response to Anupam's concerns - is entirely ok w/ me - this would only leave the following sentence intact:

 Religious and philosophical implications (DRAFT 3B)

"Since the acceptance of the Big Bang as the dominant physical cosmological paradigm, there have been a variety of reactions by religious groups as to its implications for their respective religious cosmologies."


 * This shorter version, "DRAFT 3B," also seems consistent w/ the actual RFC consensus conclusions to "keep" a brief section (ie, "kept to a limited stature") of the disputed section - in any case - hope this helps in some way - thanks for the comments - and - enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 14:35, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Yep, it should be short to be consistent with the RFC consensus. I noticed "philosophical implications" has creeped back in despite no philosophical implications being present or discussed. IRWolfie- (talk) 18:02, 3 April 2012 (UTC)


 * @IRWolfie- - Perhaps the following version, "DRAFT 3C," would be better?

 Religious interpretations (DRAFT 3C)

"Since the acceptance of the Big Bang as the dominant physical cosmological paradigm, there have been a variety of reactions by religious groups as to its implications for their respective religious cosmologies."


 * This version also seems to be consistent w/ the RFC consensus conclusions to "keep a section on religious interpretations of the Big Bang" and "kept to a limited stature" - in any case - enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 18:44, 3 April 2012 (UTC)


 * User:Drbogdan, thanks for your reply. The RfC above noted that the "result of this discussion is to keep a section on religious interpretations of the Big Bang." The reviewing administrator then stated "there is substantial mention to include some information on this, but as per this RfC, I would not encourage further expansion." The paragraph, as it stood at the end of the RfC contains 2-3 major sentences. One sentence does not suffice a section on "religious and philosophical interpretations of the Big Bang." I think the section as it stands now is fine. If we were to use some of your work, I would like to see the mention of ex nihilo. I do not have much time right now to discuss this in depth. However, I hope to see more comments here in the next few days. I will return this weekend to discuss the issue with you more and hopefully we can arrive at a good compromise. If not, I can open another RfC to decide what should be included in this section. As of now, I support the current version of the section; next, I do agree with User:Trystan's assertion that "Draft 1 does an excellent job of providing a clear, thorough, and well-sourced overview of the topic." I look forward to communicating with you later this week. With regards, AnupamTalk 19:10, 3 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I will say only that the section should be kept in its current form, retaining mention of 'ex nihilo, a concept which is supported by different religious belief system and thinking. I think this is the NPOV.Justice007 (talk) 20:32, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

I support the one sentence version in 3b. Nothing more needs to be said here, and anything else that can be added is bound to trigger an response and counter-response cascade. The link to the main article is sufficient for those readers wishing to find out more. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 21:05, 3 April 2012 (UTC)


 * The current section http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Big_Bang&oldid=485378954 seems ideal and satisfies the closing admin's remark "The result of this discussion is to keep a section on religious interpretations of the Big Bang. Furthermore, after reading through the debate, the section should be kept to a limited stature per WP:DUE." I think a single sentence goes against the consensus shown from the RfC. Polyamorph (talk) 21:18, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * @Polyamorph - AFAIK - the RFC Consensus Conclusion of "kept to a limited stature" would (could?) include "one sentence" - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 03:57, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

@Anupam (et al.) - Thank you for your comment - seems any of the three or so sentences (mostly posted originally by editors other than myself) already presented in "Draft 3," "Draft 3A," "Draft 3B" and "Draft 3C" above are entirely ok w/ me - the "ex nihilo" sentence seems more appropriate to the main Religious interpretations of the Big Bang theory article than to the main Big Bang article - after all, the latin "ex nihilo" phrase itself, hints at a particular religion; the "origins of reality" phrase seems *very* interpretable and not scientifically well grounded; and, as well, Peter Harrison seems to be more noted for writings based in religion than in science and, as such, may be more a religious notable than a scientific one - in any case - hope the following helps - enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 21:27, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * For the reasons I gave above (namely, that creatio ex nihilo is a philosophical concept), mention of it should remain.—Geremia (talk) 01:39, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * @Geremia - FWIW - Thank you for your comment and referring to your reasons for the "ex nihilo" phrasing - your posted reasons seem *very* religious to me - to my mind at this time, such material seems much better suited for the main Religious interpretations of the Big Bang theory article than the main Big Bang science article - in any regards - thanks again - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 03:02, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * One sentence is too brief. I oppose the '3' series of drafts.– Lionel (talk) 10:03, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * While "ex nihilo" may appear to have a religious overtone, it is not overly religious and fits perfectly with the topic of the section: Religious implications. Let's keep this. – Lionel (talk) 13:06, 4 April 2012 (UTC)


 * The RFC closed stating that it should be brief. It currently is brief. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:54, 4 April 2012 (UTC)


 * @Lionel - Please understand that *all* three or so sentences in the "Draft 3" series (including those sentences appearing in "Draft 3," "Draft 3A," "Draft 3B" and "Draft 3C" above) are actual sentences originally posted earlier by others and copied from either the current main Big Bang article (esp the "Religious Interpretations" Section) - or - from "Draft 1" and/or "Draft 2" above - with few if any changes whatsoever - there is no significant new material presented in the "Draft 3" series - the latin "ex nihilo" phrase (& related sentence) seems unnecessary (and/or may compromise WP:NPOV or related?) - other, less contentious, less religious-sounding (less religious-related?), phrases (sentences?) may be better - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 14:20, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * @IRWolfie All drafts proposed are one paragraph and therefore brief. (Although I would argue that a one sentence paragraph isn't a section, and opinion shard by the MoS)
 * All drafts proposed are superior to what is currently there. The current text somehow spends a lot on spurious detail, and misses all the main points. I still prefer draft 1 for the following reasons:
 * It is the most neutral. It presents all major opinions on the matter (the BB is compatible with religion X, the BB is incompatible with religion X, the BB makes religion superfluous). Moreover, it clearly states that these are all opinions.
 * It is well referenced, something that cannot be said of the various forms of draft 3.
 * It is still brief. (I think draft 2 goes into too much detail.)
 * TR 14:29, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Scientific consensus issue
I would like to note that I'm not necessarily insistent on putting in "vast majority of". I'm also fine with something different like "there is general agreement among scientists" or "there is a scientific consensus", etc.

Also, the recent Kheider edit seems to imply s/he is concerned about redundancy. I also hate redundancy, but I think the solution is to say there's the scientific consensus up front instead of mentioning it after saying "scientists support the Big Bang theory" [thereby implying all scientists do].Byelf2007 (talk) 11 April 2012


 * The scientific community as a whole supports the theory, so I have changed the wording accordingly. Regards Polyamorph (talk) 09:52, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * By the way, a citation is needed for this paragraph. Polyamorph (talk) 11:48, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Etymology
It is a common convention on this website to have etymology sections for articles (when there's a term with a clear etymology). This applies to the Big Bang theory. I think we should have an etymology section that we (a) make it easy for the reader to find the etymology and (b) be consistent with with other articles. If no one provides an argument opposing an etymology section within 24 hours, I will make the relevant change. I will also add that the merits of including an etymology section have nothing to do with how long there hasn't been an etymology section for this article. Byelf2007 (talk) 13 April 2012
 * I don't have a problem with having an etymology section in general. I did have problems with specific things you did in your edit. 1) you placed it after the overview section. Let it be the first section like in most articles. Also, a very short section sandwiched between two long sections doesn't look right. 2) if you are going to transfer the fourth lead paragraph to an etymology section, there is no need to replace it with other info. Just leave it at three paragraphs then. If you wish to mention CMB radiation make it the last sentence of the third paragraph because it is not a new topic. Otherwise you are free to just transfer the etymolog info to a new section. Cadiomals (talk) 01:28, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. From what I understand, having etymology before overview is rare, but I'm fine with it going first. Byelf2007 (talk) 13 April 2012
 * I agree that the etymology stuff should not be in the lead. One option, which I think may be a good idea in this case, is to include the etymology as a subsection of the history section. This avoids the problem of including another very short level 2 section (which this article has enough of already), and at the same time puts the etymology stuff in the right historical context.TR 08:51, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I concur. Byelf2007 (talk) 15 April 2012

RfC: Which draft should be selected?
The latest RfC (administratively closed on 18 March) confirmed that there should be a presence of a brief "religious and philosophical implications" section in this article. Which draft should be selected to appear in the section? 23:54, 23 April 2012 (UTC) 

Draft One
The Big Bang is a scientific theory, and as such is dependent on its agreement with observations. But as a theory which addresses the origins of reality it carries theological implications regarding the concept of creation ex nihilo (a Latin phrase meaning "out of nothing"); according to the Oxford professor Peter Harrison, discussions of the Big Bang's religious implications "constitute one of the liveliest areas of contemporary science-religion interchange." Since the acceptance of the Big Bang as the dominant physical cosmological paradigm, there have been a variety of reactions by religious groups as to its implications for their respective religious cosmologies. For example, many theologians and physicists have viewed the Big Bang as implicating theism; a popular philosophical argument for the existence of God known as the Kalām cosmological argument rests in the concepts of the Big Bang. Some physicists such as Owen Gingerich have stated that the Big Bang fits into a theistic worldview, and the theory has therefore been rejected by some physicists, such as Fred Hoyle, for this reason. Other physicists such as Paul Davies and Carl Sagan have argued that Big Bang cosmology has made the notion of a creator superfluous.

Draft Two
The Big Bang is a scientific theory, and as such is dependent on its agreement with observations. But as a theory which addresses the origins of reality, it has had significant implications for religion and philosophy. In particular, the theory suggests that the universe had a beginning which to some implies creation ex nihilo (out of nothing). As a result, the Big Bang theory has become one of the central subjects in the discourse on the relation between science and religion. Some religious groups, such as the Roman Catholic Church, have actively embraced the Big Bang as compatible with their view of creation, while others, such as Young Earth Creationists, completely reject the concept. On the other hand, some physicists such as Paul Davies and Carl Sagan have argued that Big Bang cosmology has made the notion of a creator superfluous.

Draft Three

 * (Note: Related Links -> "Draft 3A" + "Draft 3B" + "Draft 3C")

The Big Bang is a scientific theory, and as such is dependent on its agreement with observations. Some physicists, such as Paul Davies, Stephen Hawking and Carl Sagan, have suggested that the Big Bang is a consequence of the laws of physics alone and that the notion of a creator is unnecessary. (also see The Grand Design)

Draft Four

 * (Note: "Draft 4D" is the present version (a/o 05/24/2012) in the main article)
 * (Note: Related Links -> "Draft 4B" + "Draft 4C" + "Draft 4D")

As a theory relevant to the origins of the universe, the Big Bang has significant implications for religion and philosophy. As a result, it has become one of the "liveliest areas" in the discourse on the relation between science and religion. Nonetheless, some physicists such as Paul Davies and Carl Sagan have argued that Big Bang cosmology has made the notion of a creator superfluous.

Brief comments

 * Draft Two (Draft One is my second choice). Draft Two is well written and the sentences therein are supported reliable sources. In addition, it meets WP:NPOV because it provides a balanced view regarding the implications of the Big Bang. However, Draft One is also a good option, since it provides a thorough coverage of the topic. I hope this helps. With regards, AnupamTalk 23:54, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Draft Four (below), Three or less. Both of the others are far two long and out of place in an article on a scientific topic to which religious opinions are peripheral at best. The first fraft grossly violates WP:NPOV and sounds like something from Conservapedia. This RfC seems to be an attempt at subverting the previous RfC, which detrmined that mention of this topic should, most of all, be brief. Only one or two brief sentences should suffice, as determined in the previous RfC. Even so, that is far more than what I would prefer, which is nothing at all, since religious opinion is completely irrelvant to scientific topics. WP:ONEWAY applies. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 00:09, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Draft Two, provided " a theory which addresses the origins of reality" is corrected to "a theory which addresses the early development of the Universe." Other than that, Draft 2 is correct, succinct, and reasonably comprehensive for a summary section. I was one of the people that emphasized the need for a brief draft in the previous RfC, but Draft 3 takes brevity to an absurd degree, leaving in one view and excluding all others. Essentially everything in Draft 1 that isn't in Draft 2 is highly problematic and and not supported by the sources: the misleading wording around creation ex nihilo, the odd wording about the 5th century Kalām cosmological argument "resting" in the Big Bang theory, and the oversimplification (at best) that Hoyle rejected the Big Bang theory purely because of theological implications. (Please note, for anyone comparing this to previous the previous section, that Drafts 1 and 2 in the RfC have been reversed from that discussion.)--Trystan (talk) 00:41, 24 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Draft Two tells us something about various groups' interpretations of the Big Bang within their respective theological frameworks. Trystan's proposed change of wording is another improvement. Draft One has severe NPOV problems in one direction, Draft Three has similar problems in the other direction and furthermore say so little about its supposed topic that it's not even an adequate summary. Huon (talk) 00:50, 24 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Draft Two agree with everything Trystan wrote. --Steve (talk) 00:58, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * UPDATE: Draft Four is my second-favorite. It would be my #1 favorite if the word "Nonetheless" were replaced by "For example". --Steve (talk) 14:27, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Agree that "For example" is an improvement in Draft Four. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 14:43, 24 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Draft Two. I found Draft One quite interesting, but based on Trystan's statement (that everything in one that isn't in two was problematic) I'll have to go with Two. I'm glad you guys were able to work out a compromise. ~Adjwilley (talk) 02:07, 24 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Draft Four, Draft Three or less - as before, I continue to support a Link to the disputed material in the "See Also" Section Only - however, due to a "Consensus" to maintain a "Brief Paragraph" (or, in the actual words of the Consensus Opinion, "a section kept to a limited stature"), I posted the Draft 3 Series above - including  "Draft 3," "Draft 3A," "Draft 3B" and "Draft 3C" - further, I agree entirely w/ Dominus Vobisdu's comments above: Draft One and Draft Two are too long and out of place in a science article - much of the materials presented in Draft One and Draft Two may be better presented in the related Religious interpretations of the Big Bang theory article instead of the main Big Bang Science article - in any case - hope the above helps - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 02:42, 24 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Draft two Agree with most of what Trystan said, including changing the wording regarding "origin of reality".TR 05:36, 24 April 2012 (UTC)


 * none of them, all of them miss the point. "Draft 3" doesn't really cover anything, "Draft 2" is overly Christian, "Draft 1" is too long. 70.49.124.225 (talk) 09:43, 24 April 2012 (UTC)


 * None of the above The version here: seems to sum everything up best and is consistent with the consensus of the previous AfD. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:47, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: that version is Draft Four, below.  Waleswatcher  ( talk ) 12:24, 24 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Draft two agree with.Justice007 (talk) 12:26, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I presume that this isn't just a vote and you must provide reasoning why you have made the choice. IRWolfie- (talk) 12:36, 24 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Draft four seems to suffer from the fewest problems. Others have summed those issues up better than I can, notably WalesWatcher below. I think draft 4 could be improved, but it's as of yet the best option we have. Since the 4th draft was added after a number of users voted already, I'd urge them to look at the options again and clarify whether their position was considered with all the options in mind. A note on their talk pages indicating that a new draft is available may be prudent (but I won't be doing that personally)  &mdash; Jess · &Delta;&hearts; 13:55, 24 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Draft Four. (I'm okay with Draft three as well). Reason: We don't need excessive details in this section, as there is already a separate article, so 2-3 sentences are sufficient. Draft 1,2 are strict no, because it contains sentences like the theory suggests that the universe had a beginning which to some implies creation ex nihilo (out of nothing), we have this whole article for explaining the big bang, why would we want a sentence like this which incorrectly summarises it which looks like POV. Abhishikt (talk) 16:48, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Upon re-reading I think draft Four is better than three. So updating my comment above. Abhishikt (talk) 20:28, 24 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Draft two. I would have preferred "Draft 1", since it is more informative (and to me it doesn't look really too long), but "Draft 2" is also informative enough, while being also shorter. However, I also believe "origins of reality" should be changed, but I would prefer using "origins of the universe" more than "early development of the Universe". And regarding ex nihilo it should remain mentioned, since there are books which mention its relation to the "Big Bang" (interestingly, some of these books claim that Paul Davies also believes that the "Big Bang necessitates creation ex nihilo"). And regarding, Draft 3, and also Draft 4, as others have already said, they provide too few information, and actually to me they look more like some stub sections in need for expansion. Cody7777777 (talk) 18:35, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * @Cody7777777 - Besides the many problems with "Draft One" and "Draft Two" (see related discussions below), please recall that the earlier Consensus Opinion specifies "a section kept to a limited stature" - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 18:58, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * As far as I see, "Draft Two" has a stature limited enough. And very short sections usually require expansion. Cody7777777 (talk) 19:37, 24 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Draft 2: Even this option IMO doesn't adequately summarize the main article, but it is the best of the lot. Draft 3 completely fails WP:SS. Second pick: Draft 1. – Lionel (talk) 00:51, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
 * This article is about Big Bang and not about summary of other WP:FRINGE article. We need to what is relevant to this article and then link to the other article. The WP:SS doesn't apply here, the other article is Not scientific. Abhishikt (talk) 01:24, 25 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Draft Two. Drafts three and four don't provide enough information, while draft one has too much extraneous and confusing information. Draft two is decently concise, but explains the subject well. I do, however, agree with others that the wording of "origins of reality" should be changed, perhaps to "origins of the universe". 786b6364 (talk) 19:45, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Draft 4b below –Drafts 1 and 2 are wordy, Drafts 3 and 4 are one-sided, Draft 4b is just right. ― A. di M.​  10:54, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * @A._di_M. - Please understand that the main Big Bang article is "basically" a Science article - accordingly, aligning the disputed section toward Science seems reasonable - IMO - "Draft Four," as well as "Draft 3" (and related "Draft 3A," "Draft 3B," and "Draft 3C"), seem the better versions for an article that is "basically" a Science article - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 14:09, 26 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Draft 4 but, as mentioned by Steve, with "For example" instead of "Nonetheless". --PnakoticInquisitortalk 00:02, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Any Draft, preferably the shortest, shorn of material that belongs in the main article I don't think there is sufficient difference between the drafts to matter much. Storm in teacup stuff. Count the votes, put in a sufficient text to alert folks that there is another article, cut down the detail on items that (should) appear in the "Main article", and leave the rest to editing. The current versions all could do with a bit of editing, for example quotes around "liveliest areas", over-citation for material that should be in the main article, minor rewording etc. Remember, all we need in this technical article, if there is a main article on theology and theological philosophy, is a pointer sufficient to tell people interested in the matter, where to click. Arguments are out of place, and assessments are hardly necessary; they are the job of the main article. JonRichfield (talk) 10:07, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Draft 2- three and four are insufficient, while #1 meanders a bit. Reyk  YO!  23:34, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Draft 2- three and four are insufficient, while 1 is longer without any additional value Bulwersator (talk) 18:18, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Draft Four - Draft two is just begging for every religion to get their say. I look at that and I think 'why have they used those particular religions as examples?' and wonder what will happen when people from other religions have a divergent viewpoint. Draft four is succinct and gets the point across in a brief manner. - Rushyo  Talk  23:26, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Draft two – I think it would be a mistake to not mention any specific examples of religions or theologies, and number two does the best job of combining it all into a fluid paragraph. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 20:17, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

 * Comment – There is some good material here, but all of the drafts have issues. In particular, Trystan has some good points. Draft One seems to have a redundancy regarding (many or some) physicists and theism/theistic views. Draft Two singles out two specific religious groups, which I don't think is necessary. Draft Three presents only the humanistic viewpoint, which smacks of bias. Regards, RJH (talk) 03:33, 24 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment - none of those three are satisfactory. The version currently in the article is better, although not perfect:  Waleswatcher  ( talk ) 04:24, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

<blockquote class="toccolours" style="float:none; padding: 10px 15px 10px 15px; display:table;">

Draft Four
As a theory relevant to the origins of the universe, the Big Bang has significant implications for religion and philosophy. As a result, it has become one of the "liveliest areas" in the discourse on the relation between science and religion. Nonetheless, some physicists such as Paul Davies and Carl Sagan have argued that Big Bang cosmology has made the notion of a creator superfluous.
 * I think this version it too vague. It says that there are implications, but does not attempt to say what these implications are. Moreover, it violates WP:NPOV by only presenting one viewpoint.TR 05:43, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * It's not "vague", it's simply brief. The section cannot accurately and in a balanced way summarize the implications and remain brief, but a primary requirement of the previous rfc was that it have "a limited stature per WP:DUE".  I don't know what you mean by "only presenting one viewpoint", unless you think the mention of "lively debate" in the second sentence could be misinterpreted as referring exclusively to the view in the last sentence.  If that's the objection, it can be re-worded slightly to avoid that.   Waleswatcher  ( talk ) 14:19, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The final sentence is the only viewpoint presented. Ergo, it's one-sided. It is also only representing the viewpoint of "some physicists", so it does not satisfy WP:DUE. Now I'm not saying I disagree with that viewpoint, but I do think that Drafts 1 and 2 do a much better job of representing the other widely held viewpoints. Regards, RJH (talk) 15:09, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The final sentence is the only viewpoint presented. Not so.  The first sentence presents a clear viewpoint - that the scientific theory of the big bang is relevant to religion and philosophy - and one that in fact many people disagree with.  That's the whole point of these rfcs, really.   If anything, the last sentence serves to balance that.  But one option is to eliminate the last sentence entirely.   Waleswatcher  ( talk ) 16:01, 24 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment - FWIW - I also support "Draft Four" above (which seems to be the present version in the main article) - as well as - "Draft Three or less" (ie, "Draft 3," "Draft 3A," "Draft 3B" and "Draft 3C") and as noted above (see DB-ref and DV-ref) - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 11:02, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes I also prefer this one, it is the one I noted above, it's short and sweet and gets to the main point; that it has significant implications for the religious discourse. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:08, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I also prefer this version to the three above, and have changed my !vote accordingly. While the Big Bang may have implications for religion, religion has no implications for the Big Bang. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 11:17, 24 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment on Draft Two - I see a number of problems with it:
 * The first sentence seems pointless and out of place
 * The phrase "origins of reality" is unjustified
 * The sentence regarding ex nihilo is not justified by its sources. The Vilenkin reference is a physics paper, not remotely religious or philosophical, about a specific, technical physics theory in which universes can appear and disappear.  The Ellis paper is a long review of issues in the philosophy of physics raised by cosmology; the only place it mentions ex nihilo is in one place in the middle where it briefly mentions Vilenkin's paper as one of about 7 different options for the origin of the big bang.  The Manson book mentions ex nihilo in one footnote and one other point in the text, and doesn't seem to directly relate it to the big bang in either.
 * The next sentence mentions only Christian religions, which is biased.
 * The whole paragraph feels too long and flabby.
 * Draft four is better, because it simply says there is a "lively" debate and points to the relevant page without attempting to summarize (which is impossible considering this must be a very short section). Its last sentence serves the purpose of reminding the reader that this is a theory of science, and that some scientists reject religious interpretations of it.  Waleswatcher  ( talk ) 12:41, 24 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Wow - impressive analysis of "Draft Two" of course - "Draft Two" (and "Draft One") seemed unworthy Drafts for simply being "too long" (Consensus Opinion specifies "a section kept to a limited stature") and "out of place" [for a Science article] (as before, texts of "Draft One" and "Draft Two" may be better presented in the related non-science article instead of the main Big Bang Science article), but this latest analysis of "Draft Two" makes "Draft Two" (and the "even longer" and "more out of place," "Draft One") even more unworthy I would think - with even more reason (and/or substance?) - in any regards - Thanks for your effort - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 15:29, 24 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment Draft Four is an unacceptable version because it only includes prominent scientists who believe that the Big Bang renders the notion of a creator superfluous, thus only being favourable to one viewpoint. It does not balance this statement with scientists who feel that the Big Bang does say something about religion. Thanks, AnupamTalk 15:20, 24 April 2012 (UTC)


 * @Anupam - FWIW - Draft Four seems an "acceptible version" imo - after all, scientists presenting a scientific viewpoint to a Science article seems much more appropriate than scientists presenting a religious viewpoint to a Science article - scientists presenting a religious viewpoint seems much more appropriate to a non-science article instead - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 15:57, 24 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Anupam - The first sentence expresses the (contentious) view that the big bang is relevant to religion. The middle sentence says there is an active debate in that area. The last sentence expresses a view of that debate held by two prominent experts on cosmology.  If we want balance, the last sentence could be replaced with a quote from someone that doesn't believe the big bang, a scientific theory, is relevant to religion at all (that would be balanced), or it could be eliminated entirely.   Waleswatcher  ( talk ) 16:11, 24 April 2012 (UTC)


 * i would tend to agree with Anupam, to the extent that a short section like this needs a statement to balance it... 'Sagan and similar *viewpoints*... however other scientist holds the position that *opposing viewpoints*. it's a short section, so communicating as much information as possible is important. Kaini (talk) 23:56, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, it sounds like we might be moving towards a consensus. What about the following compromise (draft 4B)?   Waleswatcher  ( talk ) 14:38, 25 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment As per WP:DUE, 'Religious interpretations/implications' in a scientific topic like 'Big Bang' should not get more than 2-3 sentences. Abhishikt (talk) 01:30, 25 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, I agree - 2-3 brief sentences - at most - for me at the moment, "Draft Four," "Draft 3," "Draft 3A," "Draft 3B" and "Draft 3C," seem the better versions (including to "Draft 4B" below) - Seems "Draft Four" is the version in the main article at present - maybe leave well enough alone? - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 15:46, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Draft 4B Below is an attempt to incorporate an opposing view into the last sentence of draft 4. I'm not sure if these are the best references (Lerner is a bit of a fringe scientist and has a very strong bias due to his personal agenda), but I have no problem with them being replaced with others.  Waleswatcher  ( talk ) 14:47, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

<blockquote class="toccolours" style="float:none; padding: 10px 15px 10px 15px; display:table;">

Draft 4B
As a theory relevant to the origins of the universe, the Big Bang has significant implications for religion and philosophy. As a result, it has become one of the "liveliest areas" in the discourse on the relation between science and religion. Some theologians and physicists have viewed the Big Bang as implicating theism, while others such as Carl Sagan and Paul Davies have argued that Big Bang cosmology has made the notion of a creator superfluous.

Draft 4C
As a theory relevant to the origins and nature of the universe, the Big Bang necessarily has profound implications for certain fields of doctrine and philosophy. In particular it has stimulated discourse on various aspects of the relationships between science and religion. For example, some theologians and physicists argue that the Big Bang implies theism, others that Big Bang cosmology renders the notion of a creator superfluous.
 * In that proposed text (Draft 4C) I omit all refs because it is not a discussion, evaluation, or presentation of any material that belongs in the main article, where such things belong. By referring readers to the article and permitting them to reach it by a single click, it says everything that a technical article on the theory need say to serve the reader's interests, without denigrating the subject so as to discourage potentially interested readers from visiting. My ha'porth. JonRichfield (talk) 10:42, 4 May 2012 (UTC)


 * My remarks above about draft 4B apply here as well. In particular the phrase "... argue that the big bang implies theism" remains weird, since theism is the belief that a god exists. (How can a theory ever imply a belief?) Also, are you really implying that the section should have no references? That makes no sense.TR 12:38, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Fine. No problem; that is what editing is for, last time I looked. Change it to "implicitly supports" rather than implies if you like. For the rest, the proposed statement is essentially a truism, or, if you prefer, a concatenation of truisms. If you really insist on including refs, have fun, but omission makes perfectly good practical sense. After all, I have included no ref to support the assertion that the universe had origins or nature either, for the same reason. Nor for the relevance to doctrine, nor to philosophy. Truisms all, and refs would have been opaque clutter, however necessary they would be in the linked article(s). But again, you lika da refs, you edita da refs. This is still a wiki, no? IMO citations' main function is verifiability for the interested or perplexed reader. At this point in this article verification not only is unnecessary, but would represent extra clutter and an extra maintenance burden, because matching verification must exist in the linked main article; change anything either here or there (for valid reasons of course) and you must change the other article as well, and in matching context. If you don't, whether you realise that there are matching articles or not, you have created an avoidable inconsistency. Baaad stuff maaan! And what is there in this sliver of text that anyone could especially need to verify in this article? That subject matter is not covered here; we only mention the existence of a class of concern that is dealt with verifiably and passionately at the location linked. The first sentence (amended in accordance to your objection) is a truism in itself. So OK, I accept, if you insist, that you could link some of its words like: profound, implications,  fields or doctrine according to taste, and similarly theologians, physicists  theism, or cosmology in following text. There is not a single ref appropriate to that linking section that would not be demanded in the linked articles or earlier in this article. This text says in effect: "Yo bo! In case you are wondering about the relevance to theology or faith, go and do a click over there."
 * Putting yourself in the place of a concerned reader, can you think of any bases left uncovered? JonRichfield (talk) 16:29, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, in the discussion above have challenged the following truisms:
 * The Big Bang has implications for philosophy and doctrine.
 * That this has led to significant discourse on the relation between science and religion.
 * So, having some refs in place may be a good idea. (And good refs, that say more or less exactly what this paragraph says are available.)
 * In general, I think something along the lines of 4B or 4C is fine. (As you say details can be edited later)TR 20:39, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * TR, I have some difficulties with, not anyone adding refs if they feel strongly, but with those two opinions.
 * The Big Bang [theory] has implications for philosophy and doctrine, not because of any questions concerning disagreement about its theoretical validity or correctness, but intrinsically; it presents certain propositions concerning cosmological origins. At that point in the article, those propositions have been discussed and cited long before; starting in the lede in fact. After all, that is what BBT is about, right? To cite the observation that any such proposition hardly could be without such implications for either philosophy or doctrine seems a bit confusing unless one is discussing the details, which we emphatically do not wish to do here; that belongs in the linked main article (together with the citations, to be sure). But to argue whether there would be such implications or not, would be like arguing in an article on topographical surveying, about whether whether a triangle has a third side; if someone insists that the point be covered, it might be included as a passing reference to the main article on geometry or philosophy, but not as a discussion or explanation, and accordingly, not with citations. Links, maybe, but that is about it.
 * That this has led to significant discourse on the relation between science and religion is practically implicit in the previous point. In the current article BBT has already been discussed, explained, and repeatedly cited as being a scientific topic. This article is not where one explains, let alone discusses, that universal, or even cosmological, origins are concepts of considerable relevance to various doctrinal or philosophical matters. By analogy it is hard to imagine a reader who has reached this point in this article who would be grateful for our explaining that circles are round, and citing the fact. There are limits to obviosities that need citing, especially when the underlying, possibly non-trivial, rationale and discussion are copiously cited in the linked article where relevant.
 * But as I say, if you feel strongly about it, don't let me inhibit your editing...  JonRichfield (talk) 06:37, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
 * These things may be obvious to you, but a whole lot of editors above have been arguing that "a triangle does not have a third side" and that "a circle is not round".TR 10:57, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Ouch! As ever... Still, there always are such. It is a problem to know how far to indulge them. But OTOH, at such levels, would such people accept our refs? I prefer them to go and fight the good fight in the appropriate article, not here where we hardly mention the subject. And besides, as I said, I would not go to war with anyone who wanted to add his favourite refs whether it would settle the matter or not. There certainly is no shortage of options :-) JonRichfield (talk) 12:16, 5 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I like this more than any of the other drafts so far. (I'd replace “argue” with “have argued”, though.) <span style="background:#00ae00;white-space:nowrap;padding:3px;color:black;font:600 1em 'Gentium Book Basic', serif">― A. di M.​  18:47, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks AdiM. Quite a reasonable preference, I'd say. JonRichfield (talk) 19:15, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Also, I'd lose the “necessarily” –for some reason it sets my WP:W2W detector off. <span style="background:#00ae00;white-space:nowrap;padding:3px;color:black;font:600 1em 'Gentium Book Basic', serif">― A. di M.​  21:40, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Hm. My first reaction was that in context the intended meaning was "intrinsically", "logically" or "implicitly", with no hint of POV, but then it struck me that intrinsically that added nothing in essence to "implications". Since redundancy conflicts with my habitual minimalistic taciturnity, maybe losing it really is best. I then wondered about "profound", but decided that it could stay; I had included it when eliminating "liveliest areas". A bit more of this, and the passage will approach acceptable standards of English and we could present an updated version. Thanks. JonRichfield (talk) 06:37, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Draft 4D, the present version (a/o 05/24/2012) in the main article, may represent a consensus version of sorts, and perhaps should be identified for further discussion, if any - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 23:44, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

<blockquote class="toccolours" style="float:none; padding: 10px 15px 10px 15px; display:table;">

Draft 4D
As a theory relevant to the origin of the universe, the Big Bang has significant bearing on religion and philosophy. As a result, it has become one of the liveliest areas in the discourse between science and religion. Some believe the Big Bang involved a creator, while others argue that Big Bang cosmology makes the notion of a creator superfluous.

Misguided Activity
As comments/opinions of the right course have been solicited, here's mine. I think this degrades the article and there should just be a link to the main article in a See Also. If the main article on religion vs. had received the effort that went into the above, it would have been better for the wiki. Lycurgus (talk) 13:38, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * FWIW - I *Entirely* Agree With Your Point Of View And Have Noted This Several Times Earlier In The Present Discussions - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 18:12, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Without you reiterating your PoV again, again, and again, in that action stiffing productive discussion, this process would have been so much easier.TR 21:24, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, I Agree - I Would Have Also Preferred This Process To Have Gone Much Easier - Thanks For Your Comment - And - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 21:43, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * There is a clear consensus resulting from the RFC that a short section is required in this article. I was personally of the opinion that a see also link would be fine but consensus is consensus. Polyamorph (talk) 18:39, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * There's an entity called Conservapedia where like minded people push a world view, and one called Scholarpedia where this issue wouldn't arise. I wonder how this one should be renamed to reflect its majoritarian deviation from being a generic encyclopaedia where the norms of quality content for such a work apply? Or maybe that's what wiki really means, and one should just accept it. Unfortunate but there it is. 72.228.189.184 (talk) 14:45, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Read the RFC here, it's not about majority, it's about quality of arguments per WP:Consensus. Polyamorph (talk) 17:13, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Didn't realize it was that deep a waste. Imagine how much better Religious interpretations of the Big Bang theory would be! BTW should be Religion and the Big Bang Theory as interpretation jumps the gun and hints at the problem here. There's stuff on Hoyle and what not which the contention here inhibits that isn't interpretation and can be expanded there. 72.228.189.184 (talk) 06:07, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Bring it up on the appropriate talk pages rather than criticizing due process. There are strong opinions on both sides on the appropriateness of including religious interpretations of a scientific theory I think it is right that a lengthy discussion was had - if the result of the discussion had been no consensus then it might have been considered a waste, but no, consensus is clear and paves the way for improving this and the other article without objection. Polyamorph (talk) 08:11, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * "without objection" is ... &lt;insert appropriate adjective&gt; 72.228.189.184 (talk) 14:59, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Polyamorph, you don't appear to be an admin here. By what authority have you made yourself the arbiter of the public conversation on this determining when a discussions are closed or not? Lycurgus (talk) 01:58, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:Talk. Talk pages are for discussing changes to their associated articles. None of the above is relevant to improving the article. What has been said at the RFCs has been said and you've voiced your opinion, now kindly drop it unless you actually want to discuss improvements to this article. Polyamorph (talk) 08:29, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Concision, clarity, and the opening sentence
This change introduces "and other theoretical universes" to phenomena explained by the Big Bang theory. The primary reason why I removed it is that this is the very first sentence of the article. As such, we should strive to make it as clear and concise as possible, briefly introducing the topic before we delve into the more interesting details in the body of the article. Introducing multiverse hypotheses right off without taking the time to expand on the idea muddles both goals. Actually taking the time would, of course, be a massive digression that has no place in the opening paragraph. I have no particular objection to including something from the philosopher Holmes Rolston III, just not here. If we must keep this digression, it should at least be rephrased to avoid calling the universe inhabited by most of our readers "theoretical". FiveColourMap (talk) 05:59, 11 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm inclined to agree with you, FiveColourMap. Olaf Davis (talk) 14:08, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Newest Evidence
I saw this in the Space & Time articles, I hope some person may ellaborate on the evidence that relates this to the Big Bang:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/06/120607161333.htm

--71.237.241.12 (talk) 13:07, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Old star
FYI, the star HD 4308 is 17 Gyr old, see exoplanet.eu on HD 4308. (I'm happy that at least someone is not doctoring the numbers, now that Lambda-CDM CCM is dead like last year's herring). Rursus dixit. ( m bork3 !) 20:12, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Lol, cause yes that result is not indicative of a problem with the method used to determine the age of that star.TR 21:31, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Minor Erratum
The agreement is excellent for deuterium, close but formally discrepant for 4He, and off by a factor of two for 7Li Berashith (talk) 07:26, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Changes
I made some extremely minor changes that were reverted. In the intro it said "It offers an accurate and comprehensive explanation for a broad range of observed phenomena. Since its conception, abundant evidence has arisen to further validate the model." I got rid of "an accurate and" and changed "validate" to "develop". The source cited does not mention the word "accurate" or "validate". The article misrepresents the theory by deviating from the citations. Also, "If the distance between galaxy clusters is increasing today, everything must have been closer together in the past" should be changed to "As the distance between galaxy clusters is increasing today, the theory states that everything was closer together in the past" or something similar. The fact that the universe is expanding does not mean everything must have been closer together in the past, as the Steady State Theory (the major competitor of the Big Bang before the discovery of the cosmic microwave background radiation) involved a universe that was expanding but where everything was not closer together in the past.Quarkgluonsoup (talk) 03:54, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The source also does not use the word develope. The source does say: "The evidence for the Big Bang comes from many pieces of observational data that are consistent with the Big Bang." and "... many observations support the Big Bang ..." (over alternatives). I dont quite see how, you manage to summarize that to: "evidence has led to further development of the model". I have replace the sentence with something that actually matches the source (using the word "support").TR 06:49, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Features and problems section
I think this section ought to be divided into two sections--(1) features and (2) problems, or, a similar change could be made. I think it's important that we have a section which is limited to outstanding problems with the theory. Unless anyone objects soon, I'm going to reorganize the section. Byelf2007 (talk) 9 August 2012
 * This is a good idea. The current problem with the article isn't what it says but how it says it.Quarkgluonsoup (talk) 04:30, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Expansion of the lede
To the editors currently expanding the lede. Please read WP:LEDE. The current expansion brings the lede well beyond the maximum length of four paragraphs.TR 06:56, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
 * And please stop reverting each other, one of you is clearly at 3RR, the other probably could be considered to be there also technically. Dougweller (talk) 09:38, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I will no condense it to four (I think we need all/most of the info there now, though perhaps some of it should go to the overview). Byelf2007 (talk) 9 August 2012

Pre-big bang
I think there should be a subsection about the pre-big bang. Why is it not there? Pass a Method  talk  12:58, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Because the theory says nothing about it... — raeky  t  13:07, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
 * This article mostly concerns itself with what happened from the Big Bang event and onwards. There is very little research been done about what happened before the Big Bang event.  Might I recommend that you check and see what progress scientists have done in studying the Pre-Big Bang Universe?--Mr Fink (talk) 13:10, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Technically the theory also says nothing about the "event" it's self, it's a moniker attached to the theory of cosmological expansion. The conditions of the event, the event, before the event, are not part of the theory... and may be unknowable questions, but irregardless don't belong in this article since it's not what it's about. — raeky  t  13:12, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

The theory is only a scientific explanation of what happens after the Big Bang event. For explanation about the event itself, or what existed prior to the event, see the last two sections: "Speculative physics beyond Big Bang theory" and "Religious and philosophical implications". Khestwol (talk) 19:25, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Early density
"A few minutes into the expansion, when the temperature was about a billion (one thousand million; 109; SI prefix giga-) kelvin and the density was about that of air"

Sanity check (don't worry about details): Volume after 13 billion years ~= (13e9 x c) ^ 3 = (13e9 x 3e8) ^ 3 = 6e55 cubic meters Volume after 5 minutes (300 seconds) = (300 x c) ^ 3 = 7.3 e 32 m^3

So the expansion between 'a few minutes' and the current epoch is 6e55 / 7.3e32 = 8e22 ~= 1e23

So this is saying that the density of the universe at 'a few minutes' = the density of air which is 1 Kg/m^3 so the density of the current universe is 1 / 8e23 ~= 1e-23 Kg/m^3

A reasonable guess for the current density of the universe is 1e-30 grams per cubic centimeter ~= 1e-27 Kg/m^3 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Density_of_the_universe)

This disagrees with the article by a factor of about 1000.

It is late at night. Please confirm or refute my confusion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mtpaley (talk • contribs) 22:22, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
 * the talk page is for discussion of improvements to the article, not this. Kaini (talk) 22:32, 25 September 2012 (UTC)


 * By doing a straight line rewind, you assume a non-relativistic behaviour for matter in the early universe. Heat is motion.  When motion is fast enough, some of the kinetic energy is expressed as mass, which is why we speak of the rest mass of particles.  Temperature is a function of the mass of the constituent particles as well as their momentum.  Relativity makes this non-linear.  Linuxgal (talk) 01:39, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

First use of phrase "Big Bang"
Hello, my first ever post to wikipedia so apologies if I'm not quite with it in terms of etiquette/protocol.

I'd always believed Fred Hoyle was the first person to coin the term. However I've just been reading "Station X" by Michael Smith. In that book he quotes Malcolm Muggeridge's comment about the Bletchley Park codebreakers discussing the rules of rounders:

"They would dispute some point about the game with the same fervour as they might the question of free will or determinism, or whether the world began with a big bang or a process of continuing creation" (p30)

Now that of course is hearsay but does anyone know when Muggeridge first said this (it doesn't say in the book)? If it was after 1949 then maybe Muggeridge is just adopting Hoyle's terminology but it does seem to suggest that the phrase was in usage in 1940.

79.75.106.73 (talk) 21:53, 1 October 2012 (UTC)


 * It's an interesting idea, but because it is only ambiguous hearsay there's not much that can be done to confirm. My guess is that this quote happened long after Hoyle coined the term. Junjunone (talk) 22:26, 4 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I've tried to see if I could find any more information by looking at Muggeridge's writings but to no avail. One thing that does occur to me is that Muggeridge, like all the BP people, was quite discrete about his role so is unlikely to have discussed his time there before the secret was lifted.  So any comments made about BP will have come well after 1949 so it's possible/probable that Muggeridge was just using Hoyle's phrase retrospectively.

88.108.80.206 (talk) 14:07, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Well-tested scientific theory?
I am wondering whether the opening statement of the 2nd para seems to valid to other editors. "The Big Bang is a well-tested scientific theory ... " doesn't seem right to me. I'm not sure there could tests done for something 14 billion years ago. I would have thought any science here would be about measurement or observation rather than testing? It just seems to be a overly affirmative statement. martyvis (talk) 11:38, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The support for that appears in the main body of the article. --Airborne84 (talk) 13:21, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Begining of the article
There are two links to "Big Bang (disambiguation)" at the begining one should be removed. Since it's a locked article I can't do that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.69.245.239 (talk) 00:04, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Those go to different disambiguation pages. (Please don't ask why). Diego (talk) 12:37, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Pre
I think a section should be devoted to all the hypothesis about before the big bang. I welcome any suggestions.. Pass a Method  talk  15:03, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
 * If there are any scientific hypotheses concerning before the big bang, it may be worth putting such a section in. But, do remember that the Big Bang theory concerns itself with only the Big Bang, and what happened immediately after.  Perhaps we could split it off as a separate, but related article?--Mr Fink 15:08, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

New Scientist 2004 - Cosmology Statement - Scientists that discourage Big Bang Theory
An unhinged editor deleted my last talk section, so here it is again with just a link this time. Seems to be a pretty straightforward statement, and allegedly was featured in a New Scientist article.

http://cosmologystatement.org/

If legit, it definitely deserved mention in the article. 184.153.187.119 (talk) 13:02, 19 February 2013 (UTC)


 * We don't deal with "allegedly" featured claims - we require reliable sources making the claims that are ultimately added to articles, and we include just those views according to their proper due weight with respect to the topic. If you can find newspapers, books or academic papers describing the claim, bring those and we can discuss their reliability. Diego (talk) 16:06, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
 * It looks like the statement would be more adequate for Religious interpretations of the Big Bang theory, since it seems to be noticed mainly by creationists and believers in the Electric Universe. If you find the original publication, maybe one or two lines could be added there.Diego (talk) 16:29, 19 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Here's the original publication in New Scientist May 2004

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg18224482.900-bucking-the-big-bang.html

This is a wikipedia-approved source. There is no reason why it should not be added in the article. 184.153.187.119 (talk) 02:49, 20 February 2013 (UTC)


 * There is already a whole section on this in the article on Eric Lerner.Desoto10 (talk) 04:47, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 1 March 2013
Please add the following book reference: Relativity, Astrophysics and Cosmology author: Radoje Belusevic publisher: Wiley-VCH publishing date: 2008 ISBN: 978-3-527-40764-4

202.220.252.57 (talk) 05:40, 1 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Most of the time, references are only included when they actively support something in the article. gwickwire  talk editing 06:23, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Edit Request March 2
It seems that you have not put in a section on the collapsing universe part of the big bang theory. This is, to quote Benjamin Safter, author of "The Collapsing Universe Big Bang Theory: The Big Bang Making Sense", "The collapsing universe theory is, in essence, the big bang theory making sense." Since this is not a different form of the big bang, just an explanation of why and how it happened. So, a universe collapses. It forms a black whole whose wormhole spins out to nothingness, creating a white whole and another universe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brackpedia (talk • contribs) 12:15, 1 March 2013 (UTC)


 * With current knowledge, any ideas about "why and how" the Big Bang happened belongs in the realm of speculative physics. Some ideas are briefly mentioned in the section Speculative physics beyond Big Bang theory, and the idea that you mention is explained in the articles on the Big Bounce and the cyclic model. Gandalf61 (talk) 13:38, 1 March 2013 (UTC) ==

typo
off by a factor of two 7Li --> off by a factor of two *for* 7Li Halfb1t (talk) 04:44, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

What about Gravity
Gravity is not mentioned in the article except in one paragraph dealing with the far future of the Universe. But by definition compressing the mass of the universe to a single point would create the father and mother of all black holes. Surely someone should account for it more credibly than by saying "it just didn't - all the rules were suspended". Subtext: "We don't explain it because we can't; moreover it spoils our oh-so-beautiful theory".

Perhaps it would be cross purpose for them even to mention that 'mother of all black holes', that is rather a mild response? We promote the concept that all things reduce to certain regions or frequencies. These reflect as changes in changes in the 'order of magnitude'. Aspect of such changes the density in nucleon would represent such a change.

72.185.117.228 (talk) 19:13, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Origin of the universe
The opening sentence is ambiguous. It says "early development" of the universe. But does that early development include the origin of the universe or not? It's not clear.

Later on in the introduction we say, "There is little evidence regarding the absolute earliest instant of the expansion. Thus, the Big Bang theory cannot and does not provide any explanation for such an initial condition; rather, it describes and explains the general evolution of the universe going forward from that point on." So the article clearly states that the theory does not include the actual origin of the universe.

We should remove the ambiguity by revising the opening sentence to say, "The Big Bang theory is the prevailing cosmological model that describes the early development, but not the origin, of the Universe."

81.108.136.100 (talk) 07:40, 21 May 2013 (UTC) (Sorry, forgot to sign in, this contribution is from Willbown)


 * "Origin" does not necessarily refer only to initial conditions. In fact, the source being used says "The Big Bang Model is a broadly accepted theory for the origin and evolution of our universe." (emphasis mine). Of course, I am sure that there are other sources which define the word "origin" more narrowly, but this is a semantic distinction and I suspect it is why the word is kept out of the lead in the first place.


 * Also, stylistically it is better to describe something in terms of what it is rather than what it is not. Arc de Ciel (talk) 08:07, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

I do not understand your point, Arc de Ciel. I say the opening is ambiguous. Do you think it is not ambiguous? Or that it is ambiguous but that's ok? Willbown (talk) 10:02, 22 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I do not think it is ambiguous. Let me restate my response:
 * a) for some definitions of the word "origin," the Big Bang theory does explain the origin of the universe.
 * b) the citation says that the Big Bang theory addresses the origin of the universe. Since Wikipedia is built on reliable sources, if we included the word "origin" then that is the statement we would have to make.
 * c) I am sure there are citations that make the opposing claim - but then we would have opposing citations, and we would have to untangle this in the lead sentence, resulting in a convoluted definition (and in all likelihood an unclear one as well).
 * d) an easy way out of this is to avoid the word "origin" entirely. Indeed, this is the solution that previous editors have settled on.
 * e) as a purely stylistic point, you can make an infinitely long list of things that the theory does not explain, but enumerating members of that list is generally unnecessary. This is a less important point.
 * --Arc de Ciel (talk) 04:30, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, Arc de Ciel, but I still do not find your thinking clear. You start by saying the opening is unambiguous, but then give me a lengthy rationale for why the opening has been deliberately kept ambiguous!

Words can themselves have ambiguous shades of meaning, so let's try to avoid, at least at first, getting tangled up in language and instead concentrate on the actual facts we are attempting to describe. So let me put it like this. There are two possibilities here:

1. That the scientifically prevailing Big Bang theory reaches back in time to a limited degree and that beyond a given point in time the theory has nothing to say about the development of the universe

2. That there is no such point in time, ie you can choose any point in time and the Big Bang theory tells us how the universe was developing then.

In my opinion, based for example on the quote I gave earlier, the article itself adopts the "limited" position, position 1; but the opening sentence is ambiguous between the limited position and the "total" position, position 2. What do you think?

Willbown (talk) 08:04, 23 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I did not say the the opening had been "deliberately kept ambiguous" - but I don't agree that your proposed change adds anything to the ambiguity of the definition or lack thereof, and I am arguing against that. Yes, I agree that all words have some ambiguity to them and thus the current definition has some ambiguity in that sense, but in that sense the word "origin" has the same problems, as I have described. For your proposed edit to be correct, it requires "origin" to be defined in a specific way, but the source does not appear to use this definition.


 * I italicized the last part because it's the most important, though perhaps I didn't make that clear. The Wikipedia citation policy is at WP:RS, and must be applied especially stringently here since this is a featured article. Since the current citation is directly opposed to your proposed change, you will first need to find a reliable source supporting your change. However, since the current citation opposes your change, your proposed citation must be at least equally as good as the current one (definition given in educational materials prepared by a leading scientific agency). At that point we would have two opposing citations, and we would be able to make a statement that is equivocal between the two possibilities (although as I pointed out, I doubt this could be achieved in a concise way). So that means you would need to produce a much stronger case, i.e. several citations of this type, enough to completely outweigh the one that we have. There are not many better sources available; the exact relative strength of citations can be debated, but widely-used cosmology textbooks are an option, as are statements from other leading scientific organizations (e.g. the British Royal Society). Since we are trying to cite a primary definition, the source should be using your proposed text in a primary definition as well. Arc de Ciel (talk) 10:57, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Arc de Ciel, I am not wedded to the word "origin" or the specific revision I made, perhaps there are better ways of clarifying what the article says. But I am wedded - as I have set out in painstaking detail above - to the conviction that the introduction is ambiguous and fails to reflect the position of the article. In other words, I am not trying to change what the article states; I am merely trying to make it clearer.

For this reason, I think a battle of citations is inappropriate. From my point of view, this is an editing discussion. However, since you insist, I believe your approach is flawed because 1) you place much too much weight on a single citation; 2) the citation you have provided is from a low quality document; and 3) the citation you have provided is not from a reliable source on the Big Bang theory.

1) The Big Bang theory has a vast scholarly literature to support it. This article references over 100 sources. To place so much faith in a single source is asking for trouble.

2) The actual source you have cited is a short, badly written article that does not state its author or claim to have been through any kind of review process. Although the page has the title "Universe 101", this is obviously not the source material for a university course in cosmology. It cannot be classed as an "educational material"; it is actually more akin to an online brochure.

3) You seem to be of the opinion that because this page is on a Nasa website that it is therefore from a reliable source. Allow me to demonstrate the falseness of this view. Visit http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/site/faq.html. This is another page which is actually part of the same NASA WMAP project microsite. This page contains the following statement:

"What happened before the Big Bang? What happened right at the moment of the Big Bang? We don't know. To even address these questions we need to have a quantum theory of gravity. We have a quantum theory, and we have a gravity theory, but these two theories somehow need to be combined. We know that our current gravity theory does not apply to the conditions of the earliest moments of the Big Bang. This is exciting research now in progress!"

This of course is the exact opposite of the view expressed in the citation you refer to. There is absolutely no reason to believe that Nasa as an institution believes in the truth of the citation you refer to. And finally, while Nasa builds rockets and instruments, do you have any reason for believing that it has strong expertise in the Big Bang theory itself?

For reasons 2) and 3), the citation you refer to should be discarded as unreliable.

By contrast, I refer you to this page produced by a leading scientific organisation devoted to cosmology, the University of Cambridge Centre for Theoretical Cosmology http://www.ctc.cam.ac.uk/outreach/origins/big_bang_three.php. This states:

"Quantum cosmology considers questions about the origin of the Universe itself. This endeavours to describe quantum processes at the earliest times that we can conceive of a classical space-time, that is, the Planck epoch from the beginning of the Universe to 0.0000000000000000000000000000000000000000001 seconds after its beginning. Given that we as yet do not have a fully self-consistent theory of quantum gravity, this area of cosmology is more speculative."

This reflects the point of view I believe is in this Wikipedia article, ie the "limited" position I outlined previously.

So, to sum up, your citation does not support your position with regards to whether the edit should be made or not. Do you have any other arguments to support your position?

Willbown (talk) 20:13, 23 May 2013 (UTC)


 * It isn't "my position," it's the previous consensus for the lead sentence. If you would like to dispute the reliability of the current citation, I suggest you ask at WP:RSN. The citation is by the scientists who run the WMAP observatory, as stated on the main page of the site, and the list of people is here. Although the list may have turned over a bit since 2011, past members of the group are also listed, and needless to say these are all highly respected experts.


 * In any case: thank you for providing the sources, which I agree are good ones - and of course I agree that multiple citations would be better, and these new ones could be useful in that regard. That said, I don't see any contradiction between the quotes you have given and the statement from the current source. In fact, the CTC source is titled "The origin of the universe: the Big Bang," which seems to imply (at the least) a relationship between the two. However, as you say you aren't wedded to the word "origin," could you perhaps propose one or more alternative lead sentences that you would be satisfied with (and are supported by the sources)? Arc de Ciel (talk) 10:19, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Arc de Ciel, I will be quite happy to suggest alternative revisions if we can agree on what needs to be achieved. Do you agree that there is an important distinction between the two positions that I outlined and that it is not clear which of them is supported by the opening sentence? To recap, these two positions are:

1. That the scientifically prevailing Big Bang theory reaches back in time to a limited degree and that beyond a given point in time the theory has nothing to say about the development of the universe

2. That there is no such point in time, ie you can choose any point in time and the Big Bang theory tells us how the universe was developing then.

During this discussion, you have concentrated on process. I really do think that you also need to address the substance of the issue I am raising.

Willbown (talk) 17:30, 24 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't think anything needs to be achieved; you are the one who wants to make changes. I'm fine with the article as it is (as, presumably, are the other editors who watch this page, since they haven't already changed it).


 * The "process" is that any statement which is contested needs a reliable source to back it up - this is WP:V, one of the core Wikipedia policies. Since this is the lead sentence (and furthermore a featured article), higher standards have to be met. Ideally you would produce a high-quality source which provides a primary definition of the Big Bang in terms understandable to the general public and including the phrase "not the origin" (or similar) as part of that definition. That would fulfill the verifiability requirement as well as any concerns over giving the statement such a prominent place. Of course there are always compromises, and other types or combinations of sources can be discussed. Although, since the statement is already sourced, we need to consider that as well, as I have described.


 * The question you're asking is tangential; as per the last paragraph, Wikipedia requires verifiability. It's a topic I don't mind discussing, though, so I have answered on your talk page. Arc de Ciel (talk) 05:50, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

None of the Wikipedia guidelines can be applied correctly unless they are used in a logical fashion. If a source asserts as true both X and not X, then it is clearly madness for Wikipedia to rely on the source to distinguish between X and not X. But that is what you are doing here when relying on the WMAP project pages. Why defend a source that has been demonstrated to you as an unreliable guide on this point?

Willbown (talk) 10:05, 25 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I already responded to your contention that the source is unreliable. Also, since editors have maintained the source in the lead sentence of this (featured) article for a couple of years now, I think there is a strong presumption in favor of its reliability. However, if you'd like to challenge it, I suggest WP:RSN. Arc de Ciel (talk) 08:05, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Missing source
The second paragraph's first sentence does not fully cite its sources : "The Big Bang is a well-tested scientific theory [...]". There should be external sources for this part. 83.101.5.106 (talk) 09:07, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The observational evidence (abundance of light elements etc. etc.) is listed in the second sentence of that paragraph, which also cites its source. The first sentence just introduces the topic of the paragraph so it does not need a separate citation. Gandalf61 (talk) 09:42, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Quantum Model of Theory
I am not posing original research but is there a source of works on the Big Bang Theory and quantum physics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.28.57.1 (talk) 01:17, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Problem with introduction?
The introduction claims that neutral atoms only "appeared" after thousands of years. Apart from the problems with the use of the word "appear", I believe that neutral hydrogen DID exist (transiently) as soon as the density was sufficiently low to allow electrons to be bound to protons. The statement confuses life-time and stability with existence. There were neutral hydrogen atoms (and probably molecules) in transient existence within seconds after time 0, not thousands of years. Is the introductory statement misleading enough to be changed? IDK, but perhaps saying that electrons and protons could not form stable neutral atoms until temperatures cooled, taking thousands of years, would be a better approach. Until neutral atoms predominated over ions, the Universe was opaque, light was strongly coupled to matter.72.172.1.135 (talk) 16:01, 27 July 2013 (UTC)


 * If there are suitable, testable, verifiable, falsifiable references in the extant peer-reviewed journals or other publications which support the need to alter the introduction, it would be good to discuss them here and work toward an update which corrects the introduction.
 * I find a number of problems with the introduction also, not the least of which is the statement "is widely accepted within the scientific community" which is inaccurate since cosmologists, astrophysicists, and scientists working within related fields are in acceptance of the contemporary model, however such scientists do not comprise the whole of "the scientific community" which includes biologists, paleontologists, et al. which (aside from being irrelevant to the subject) might not be in agreement with the contemporary model. It would be better to say, "scientists working within the field of Big Bang cosmology" would be more accurate; something along those lines. Saying "the scientific community" is overly broad and not accurate.
 * I'm not an expert on Big Bang cosmology or nucleosynthesis, however if the introduction is as inaccurate as you suggest, there has got to be suitable references to support an update. If you find some, let's take a look at them here. Thanks! Damotclese (talk) 00:10, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Also if I'm not mistaken, the Steady State Hypothesis was a hypothesis, not a theory, the two terms are distinctly different. Damotclese (talk) 00:14, 9 August 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)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg 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)

British English
Quite right this article is written in British English (by the way, don't forget BE spelling is the same as Australian and Canadian). T A Francis (talk) 19:39, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Here's the Wikipedia guideline on British/U.S. English. Art LaPella (talk) 20:07, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Skepticism
I added quality and importance ratings for the article for WikiProject Skepticism: Featured article, Top importance. Anyone disagree?--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 12:09, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Did you mean Top importance? Because you've actually classified it as Mid importance. Diego (talk) 13:25, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, I mean Mid.--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 16:01, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

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)


 * Simple Wikipedia exists for a reason Moonboy54 (talk) 05:08, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree - relevant link, if interested, is here => Big Bang - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 02:54, 14 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Simple Wikipedia is written very far below the level of, say, Encyclopedia Britannica, and is utter irrelevant to this discussion. This Wikipedia article is written at a level that is far more technical and esoteric than any article in Encyclopedia Britannic, or in any reputable encyclopedia. My suggestion is to change the name of Wikipedia to Wikitechnica, or Wikihandbook, because articles like these disqualify it as an encyclopedia in any normal sense of the term.77Mike77 (talk) 13:36, 14 March 2014 (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)

Thanks for the clarification.77Mike77 (talk) 13:38, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Assumption: Cosmological principle
I think the discovery of the Hercules-Corona Borealis Great Wall should be included, it seems to be a structure which can not be explained by this principle. --RicardAnufriev (talk) 02:03, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The exact nature of the Great Wall's formation is curious, but the studies done do not suggest that this invalidates the big bang. 74.128.43.180 (talk) 02:34, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Image/caption
In the Problems subsection there's an image, which I've reproduced here, showing the BICEP2 detector undergoing microscopic examination. The first problem is that the caption seems to imply that evidence of gravitational waves in the infant universe (a groundbreaking discovery, to be fair) was found by looking at the instruments, rather than using these instruments to observe the universe. Or have I read that wrong? The second problem, and the reason why I've elected not to fix the first problem myself, is that this image has no place being in that section and really ought to be removed. I'd remove it myself but I thought it might seem ill considered. It's an interesting image of an impressive detector that has since made an amazing discovery, but that isn't sufficient reason to shoehorn it in here, is it? nagualdesign (talk) 02:18, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The image is relevant to the inflationary theory, but it was not clear how. I've moved it to the "Other lines of evidence" section that clarifies how gravitational waves are related to the big bang theory.
 * As for the difference between looking at the instruments and using the instruments to observe the universe, I don't see the problem; the first is necessary to achieve the second. Can you please suggest a better wording that would address your concern? Diego (talk) 11:29, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I think this image simply is not very suitable for this article. It does not illustrate anything useful. It does not give the reader any idea of the nature of the BICEP experiment (in fact it is more likely to give the wrong idea). I suggest just dropping the image.TR 20:07, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Big bang vs black hole, universal expansion vs light speed
I have 2 questions which do not seem to be explained:

1. How does the early universe, or significant portions of it, avoid being considered a black hole?

2. It appears that the outward spread of light is not the same as the expansion of the universe. If the outward spread of light does not effectively cause the universe to grow, then where does the light go (I know I didn't express that well)? Hmm, I guess this is answered by the universe wrapping around.

Scott McNay (talk) 03:11, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The short answer to your first question: "because it expands" or "because it is not dense enough".
 * The slightly longer answer is that expansion of spacetime and gravitational collapse are two competing effects with in the case of our (visible) universe expansion winning. The condition for the visible universe to collapse or keep expanding is exactly the question whether the density is lower or higher than the critical density as discussed in the section on the future according to the Big Bang.
 * It is of course possible that in some regions the density was big enough to win out from the expansion. This regions would have collapsed to form primordial black holes.
 * The second question, just seems a matter of confusion about what is meant with "expansion". The universe is not expending into anything.It is space itself that is expanding. As far we can tell the universe is completely homogenous, consequently there is no such notion as "outward". In particular there is no outward spread of light. (At any point, there is about same amount of light travelling in any direction. Well, at least if you average over a large enough scale.) The article attempts to address this in the section title "FLRW metric".TR 09:52, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

A conceptual fallacy?
I miss a discussion about the following problem:

A universe only can be said to expand if it has a finite inside dimension –which in increases in time.

Not to mention that Big Bang cosmology in speaking about its age, asserts that the universe lives in a time realm not of its own making, doesn’t a (finite) inside dimension imply a finite outside size –even though it obviously cannot be measured from the outside as space and time, the meter and second aren’t defined outside of it?

Put differently, what is the significance of statements about the size and age of the universe if by definition there is nothing outside of it with respect to which its size and age matters, physically?

Can someone explain how a universe can have particular properties and evolve as a whole if there is nothing outside of it with respect to which it can have properties, can interact with and express such properties?Antonquery (talk) 03:11, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
 * You'd have better luck asking this at the Science Reference Desk, which is meant for general questions. This page is for discussion about how to improve Wikipedia's article about the Big Bang. Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 05:05, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
 * These are questions that taking a course on differential geometry will answer.TR 08:09, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Before The Big Bang Information?
To start, I do not know much about cosmology (verging on nil) and was looking for something at the beginning of the Big Bang article that would mention some alternative besides there’s nothing then poof the universe (the article hints at an alternative by using “prevailing cosmological model”). Never the less, I still will ask a very simplistic question that someone should have already asked (and put some place on Wikipedia for me to read), since the universe is 13.8 or so billion LY in each direction and still expanding, doesn’t this seem to follow the same concept of a supernova or other cosmological things exploding but on a larger, “universal” scale? In other words, is there something bigger than the universe (a non sequitur since nothing bigger than the universe?) that our universe is expanding in? If so, then where would such a link or information be found if not in the “See Also” section or at the beginning of the article? Please use small words when you explain how wrong I am on this request and where to find this info in Wikipedia. Septagram (talk) 20:51, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
 * @ - FWIW - several possible articles that *may* be relevant to your question => "Multiverse" and "Roger Penrose" - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 22:24, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

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
 * Good query. To avoid a lot of dispute, I would say, "alphabetical." And I would advise your being WP:Bold and simply doing it. GeorgeLouis (talk) 00:13, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Lemaître title
Should not Georges Lemaître's reference include his full title as professor of physics at the Catholic Universty of Leuven, that is: "Msgr. Fr Feorges Lemaitre, professor of physics at the Catholic University of Leuven". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.203.88.125 (talk) 23:57, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
 * In a perfect world we would use very short titles before all the names in the paragraph, but not an extensively long one as you propose. GeorgeLouis (talk) 00:15, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Simplifying the lede
I think it this point the lede (and in particular the first paragraph) is more complicated than it needs to be. Given the mass appeal of the subject, we should be aiming to make the lede accessible to as large an audience as possible. In the process we should be looking to see if we can make the lede a bit shorter as it is a bit longish. (At a glance there is some detail there that is need absolutely necessary. I have made a start at reducing the huge amount of wikilinks in the lede, which hamper readability (we do not need to link every other word). Similarly, there were way to may references for some single facts which I trimmed.

One suggestion would be to have one or two sentences after the first sentence that summarize the core of the ideas behind the Big Bang theory. For example,
 * "The main idea is that the universe is expanding. Consequently, the universe was denser and hotter in the past. In particular, the Big Bang model suggests that at some moment all matter in the universe was contained in a point. Modern measurements place this moment at approximately 13.82 billion years ago, which is thus considered the age of the universe."

I am not quite happy with this yet, but it does put into focus the main idea behind the BB: the universe is and was expanding. I am not quite sold on inlcuding the singularity bit, partly because the singularity falls outside the Big Bang theory per se. However, some how including the fact that the big bang theory suggests the universe (as we know it) has a beginning seems desirable.TR 14:02, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
 * That sounds good. Be careful with removing too many links; the lede section admits a higher density of wikilinks, as any jargon term should be either explained or linked to. Diego (talk) 14:59, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

help with sentence
The lede currently contains the following sentence:
 * "The Big Bang theory offers a comprehensive explanation for a broad range of observed phenomena, including the abundance of light elements, the cosmic microwave background, large scale structure, and Hubble's Law."

I feel that this sentence may not be helpful to the general reader who will have no clue what there phenomena are based on the jargon used to refer to them. However, I am stuck on thinking how to improve it. Any ideas?TR 12:09, 2 May 2014 (UTC)


 * My feeling is that since these topics are all explained in the article and all but one of them are linked in the lede (perhaps linking 'abundance of light elements' somewhere would help, but I'm not quite sure of the best target) it's fine as is. The lede is meant to be a summary of the article, and we can't go into too much detail. The current version tells the reader that the BBT explains lots of observations and lists the main ones, allowing them to follow those up if desired or read on to find out more. That seems OK to me. Olaf Davis (talk) 12:37, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I mostly agree. It is OK, but it is not very good or excellent (which is what you want from an FA). It is this sort of sentence that makes articles like this one inaccessible for many lay readers. So, if we can find a better alternative that would be a good thing. If we can't it also not too big a deal.TR 13:00, 2 May 2014 (UTC)


 * FWIW - first sentence of paragraph seems ok to me as well - but then - seems the entire paragraph could be better (esp second "sentence"?) - seems "readability" of the paragraph could be better also - perhaps replace the paragraph with equivalent content from an earlier version? =>

<blockquote class="toccolours" style="float:none; padding: 10px 15px 10px 15px; display:table;"> copied from an earlier version: The Big Bang is a well-tested scientific theory which is widely accepted within the scientific community because it is the most accurate and comprehensive explanation for the full range of phenomena astronomers observe. Since its conception, abundant evidence has arisen to further validate the model.
 * hope this helps in some way - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 13:00, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
 * TR, go ahead and simplify the lead. GeorgeLouis (talk) 00:18, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Wikigroaning
The article on the sitcom The Big Bang Theory has 17,299 words on Wikipedia. This article has 11,426 words. So the article on the beginning of our known universe is shorter than the article on a sitcom with a bunch of characters who have traits of aspergers syndrome. Interesting! Boone jenner (talk) 16:30, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
 * But that's highly misleading, as this article summarises a series of articles, as indicated by the Main article: links atop most sections and as mandated by Summary style. Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 05:32, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

New theory
http://arxiv.org/abs/1309.1487

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/08/140807145618.htm

Does this warrant an inclusion in the article? If not, it would be wise to keep an eye on the theory as it develops, in order to include it in case harder evidence comes to light.213.220.203.77 (talk) 21:00, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Purposed re-direct
Good day to you fine editors of Wikipedia. I went searching for the show big bang but was sent here; some odd theorem of lesser importance. i purpose we re-direct big bang to the tv show as it is clearly they more popular reference for this term (425k to 125k views). I purpose this page be renamed to 'big bang the scientific theory.' and redirect 'big bang' to the tv show. Happy editing, 99.239.214.117 (talk) 01:47, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Google hits does not trump the fact that the show is named after the theory describing the creation of this universe.--Mr Fink (talk) 02:30, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I would also point out that the show is called "The Big Bang Theory", not just "Big Bang".Farsight001 (talk) 03:04, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Considering that the show has a different name there is no reason that Big Bang should redirect to the show's article.--76.65.42.142 (talk) 00:09, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 September 2014
Please fix the tense in the sentence: "The majority of atoms that were produced by the Big Bang are hydrogen," Your tenses are wrong, it should be "The majority of atoms that were produced by the Big Bang were hydrogen,"

184.1.125.205 (talk) 15:46, 19 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Fixed it, thank you. I suppose most of them still are hydrogen, but your way is still better. - 2/0 (cont.) 19:13, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Misnomer (incorrect name) for Big Bang
Just think we should emphasize that "The Big Bang is not an explosion of matter moving outward to fill an empty universe". This is already in the article, but not clear enough -a lot of people incorrectly think the Big Bang is an explosion 129.180.175.166 (talk) 06:14, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
 * While, yes, the name "Big Bang" is a misnomer, the problem with this suggestion is that it's still officially called the "Big Bang," and Wikipedia can not rename it without running afoul of Wikipedia's own rules against original research and inappropriate synthesis. Where would you add more emphasis to better explain how it's not actually an explosion?--Mr Fink (talk) 15:46, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

I suggest that since it is a general consensus of the field that time and space expanded rather than there being a single point of an detonation, that the words explosion be replaced with expanded or expansion. By definition the requirements for an explosion do not exist within the Big Bang.--digitalbeachbum 11:13, 9 October 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Digitalbeachbum (talk • contribs)
 * Isn't that already explained in the article?--Mr Fink (talk) 15:33, 9 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I am confused by this statement. The only occurrences of the word "explosion" in this article, are in sentences saying (in various forms) that the big bang is not an explosion. What is it exactly that you are suggesting?TR 15:53, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

visible universe
Since the big bang theory only accounts for 4.9% of the universe (i.e. ordinary matter), shouldn't the statement in Wikipedia :

"The Big Bang theory is the prevailing cosmological model for the early development of the universe." be modified to end with:

"the development of 4.9 % of the universe (i.e. ordinary matter)"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.234.204.140 (talk) 16:40, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
 * no.TR 16:45, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Why do you think that the Big Bang theory only accounts for ordinary matter ? How do you think dark matter originated ? Gandalf61 (talk) 16:20, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Incorrect statement about the Big Bang model needs correction
The article incorrectly states "the Big Bang model suggests that at some moment all matter in the universe was contained in a single point". This is merely a popular misconception about the Big Bang model, is contrary to authoritative sources about the Big Bang model, and should not be further popularized.

According to http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/bb_concepts.html

Furthermore, according to http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/uni_shape.html

Another source, Anthropic Bias: Observation Selection Effects in Science and Philosophy (Studies in Philosophy), by Nick Bostrom, page 51:

Unless there is a request for additional authoritative sources confirming that what the wikipedia article states is a misconception about the Big Bang model, I will proceed with making the necessary correction. Thank you, Vanyo (talk) 02:28, 18 October 2014 (UTC)


 * The statement is not actually inaccurate. All the universe WAS contained in a single point, that single point also being the sum total of space too.  I think there was a talk page discussion about this very issue a few years back in the archives.Farsight001 (talk) 05:26, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
 * For each of those "reputable"sources you can find sources treating the initial singularity as a single point. So who is wrong? Nobody. The dimensionality of singularities in GR is notoriously ill defined. Being a singularity the geometry of the initial time slice is not defined at all. The best you can do is define a topology on it. Here you have a choice. You can complete your open manifold by a single point or by a point for each comoving coordinate. (There are more choices, but those are not isotropic or homogeneous).
 * If you choose for a spatially infinite initial slice, however, you end up with a very unintuitive result. Because, the FLRW metric is spatially homogeneous and isotropic and contains matter, it has a preferred time slicing. This allows for a canonical definition of the geometry of the initial slice. In this geometry, the geodesic distance between all points on the initial slice is zero. Hence it is not what anybody intuitively would call "infinite". (In fact, the natural topology induced by this induced metric is the trivial topology. If we then insist on the topology being Hausdorf as well, then this implies that the initial slice consists of only a single point).TR 12:23, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Do those sources that describe it as a single point (or anything spatially finite) address whether or why they're assuming the universe today is spatially finite? (but of course unbounded) ... Or are they just repeating a popular misconception about the theory? Do they argue that the question of a finite or infinite universe is settled?  Do they argue that an infinite universe can expand from a point?  I'd like to see a source that addresses those question with a different conclusion than the sources I cited.  I know there are many that repeat the hypothesis of a pointlike singularity while seemingly oblivious to any of that. Vanyo (talk) 19:28, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
 * No they do not, because they do not assume that the universe today is spatially finite. Going from your response, I am guessing you did not understand the explanation I gave before. More simply put, it is simply the question: What is zero times infinity? (With the answer being depends.)TR 20:09, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The wording is a little bit poor, I must agree. To state that "all matter in the universe was contained in a single point" conjures up images of something with and outside as well as an inside. Perhaps the word "occupied" might be more appropriate?  nagual  design   01:27, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Indeed, the wording can probably be improved. However, to me "occupied" conjures up even more strongly the possibility of there being other points. The whole point is that at the Big Bang singularity all of space (and its contents) is reduced to a single point. The emphasis here is that this is not a single point is space, but that space is a single point (at t=0). I had a go at making this more explicit in the lede.TR 13:03, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

LEAD TOO LONG -- Too complex
I am sorry to come here and say this, But I read a lot of Leads on Wikipedia and this one is a MONSTER. It is too big, too much non-essential detailed information that belongs in the body, not the lead per WP:LEAD. As often is the case people work on these articles so long that they stop being critical. But when I read this lead it is heavy and too much. 1/2 this info does not belong in a lead. Actually I find it hard to read because of how it is written. --Inayity (talk) 19:35, 8 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, this is often a problem. I think that a short lead gets written, then added to, and added to, etc. Some leads evolve into monsters. Just taking a quick look, I'd say that the entire paragraph on history can be deleted. That material appears below, and all an interested reader has to do is scroll down a bit. In general, it is helpful to reflect on just what is necessary for a lead. It can be a learning experience on its own. I'd concentrate just on what the BB is, not how we came to understand the BB. But, of course, some editors may disagree. Still alive, Grandma (talk) 19:43, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
 * History section is critical to the topic and should not be deleted from the lead. Consider that some people will only read the lead, and that it should stand as a miniature article with all the relevant parts. Diego (talk) 21:39, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Diego, In the spirit of moving forward, then, what do you think should be removed? Please be specific. Grandma (talk) 21:45, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
 * There's no need to remove anything, only to give it a better structure. I've reworked the lead using an inverted pyramid and moving some of the fluff to the Overview section, that was empty anyway. In this form, the lead provides a short introduction to the concepts of the theory without unnecessary detail, without renouncing to the historical part which will be what non-technical readers will be most interested in. The inessential concepts of what the theory is that were in the lede are now moved right below it, in the Overview section, that before was too complex to provide an actual overview of the general topic. Feel free to change some sentences between these two parts, as long as the lede still contains the few essential parts about who proposed the theory and in what century it did happen. Diego (talk) 21:58, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Diego, for contributing, here. I also hope other editors weigh in on the lead, working to keep it focussed. Cheers, Grandma (talk) 01:41, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Often people are too close and cannot judge what is non-essential: In 1929, Edwin Hubble discovered that the distances to faraway galaxies were strongly correlated with their redshifts. Hubble's observation was taken to indicate that all distant galaxies and clusters have an apparent velocity directly away from our vantage point: that is, the farther away, the higher the apparent velocity, regardless of direction.[7] Assuming that we are not at the center of a giant explosion, the only remaining interpretation is that all observable regions of the universe are receding from each other.--100% this is NOT lead material.--Inayity (talk) 02:55, 9 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Inayity, I agree, and, personally, I'd take out all the history from the lead. History is important, yes, and I love it, but there is so much to cover in this article, and repetitious stuff can be removed. An example of a succinct lead that is related to this page on the BB is Universe. Although the universe literally encompasses everything, the lead for that article is relatively short! Cheers, Grandma (talk) 02:59, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I have tried to make the opening flow better, please feel free to tweak, re-edit, whatever. I feel the age of the Universe and the beginning of the universe convey the same point, it is a choice which one is better but I think having both is a duplicate.--Inayity (talk) 03:21, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
 * You don't seem to understand the problem you've created with that removal. By removing history, you eliminate any insight about the timeframe in which the theory was created. In your version, Big Bang theory could have been one of the many theories invented by the Greek; no one could tell otherwise from the lede. The Universe is not a human creation, the theory that describes the Big Bang is, though; the lead needs to include some basics about how the theory was developed, not merely of what it says. Diego (talk) 07:42, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
 * But you still have to write good prose, not have orphan statements that are disconnected at out of place. In 1929 Edwin Hubble discovered evidence that all faraway galaxies are drifting away at high speeds seems orphaned. --Inayity (talk) 08:25, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Then improve the paragraph, don't delete it wholesale. This is collaborative editing. Make an improvement that you think I could agree with, taking into account what I've said it's important to keep. Diego (talk) 08:59, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I did not delete it wholesale, I removed excessive information. And put a notice to problem sections so we can work on them collectively. --Inayity (talk) 09:09, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Those sentences cannot join. I think something must be added and we must look at the chronology of events, and also that last sentence in the lead I do not get it-- I understand background radiation but something needs to be clarified. --Inayity (talk) 12:39, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

New idea published
This seems of interest, the idea that the Big Bang created two universes, with two separate space/time frames. Also noted here. The research by Barbour, Koslowski, and Mercati was published in October 2014 in "Physical Review Letters". Airborne84 (talk) 09:05, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
 * How WP:NOTABLE is it in the broader scientific community? I am not sure but need to make sure it is not WP:FRINGE--Inayity (talk) 16:30, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

FWIW - Yes - imo at the moment, new theory  re Big Bang seems worth considering further - and possibly including in the Big Bang article - Comments Welcome of course - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 17:15, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

cn tag
(Moved from Myrvin's Talk page}

please don't simply redo things like that. The article does not belong to you and you need to justify your actions Tetra quark (talk) 18:46, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

edit: it turns out you added the tag in a different location, so I restored it. Being more clear in the summaries can be good Tetra quark (talk) 18:50, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry TQ, what cn are you talking about? I don't remember "redoing" a tag recently. I did get an edit clash on Big Bang, maybe that was it. And I did accidentally press the Save button before adding a comment. If you check, you will see that I very rarely miss. It would only have been "cn" or "where is this?" or suchlike. I see you are one of those editors who think a wikiink is as good as a citation - it is not. Every assertion needs a citation. You should read WP:SCG. Also, see the discussion on Talk:Uncertainty principle Myrvin (talk) 20:58, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * This should be on the article Talk page - I'll move it. Myrvin (talk) 20:59, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I have now found which cn you mean. As it happens, I did check the wikilink for Big Bang nucleosynthesis and looked for an assertion that said "This provides direct evidence that there was a period in the history of the Universe before the formation of the first stars, when most ordinary matter existed in the form of clouds of neutral hydrogen." I could not find it. But it's quite a big article, so maybe I missed it. If it was there, it would have to be cited too. Or maybe there would be another wikilink to follow - and so on and so on. Myrvin (talk) 21:10, 23 January 2015 (UTC)


 * The second cn tag you added was fine. I was referring to the first one. Tetra quark (talk) 22:13, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I wish you'd say where. Is it the Flatness theory section? I tagged: "Thus, it is theorized that inflation drove the Universe to a very nearly spatially flat state, with almost exactly the critical density.[citation needed]" Which of the several wikilinks should I look at for verification for that?Myrvin (talk) 07:32, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
 * In Cosmic acceleration, I tagged "Apparently a new unified theory of quantum gravitation is needed to break this barrier. Understanding this earliest of eras in the history of the Universe is currently one of the greatest unsolved problems in physics." and you removed it. Where in Quantum gravitation or List of unsolved problems in physics does it say this? It still needs a citation. Myrvin (talk) 10:44, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

(moved from Myrvin's Talk page)

One of the unspoken rules of wikipedia is: Don't go adding cn tags everywhere. If I wanted to, I could add cn tags on 90% of the articles I read, but I don't. It looks bad.

Just to let you know, once again I removed one of the cn tags you added after this sentence:

Understanding this earliest of eras in the history of the Universe is currently one of the greatest unsolved problems in physics.

As I said before, that does not need a citation. Tetra quark (talk) 14:39, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
 * My tag was for the whole paragraph. Perhaps others will agree with you. Otherwise I'll ask for a decision from elsewhere. As you say, there is a lot of uncited material around. It is partly our job to fix it. I looked to see if I could find a reference for it and failed.Myrvin (talk) 15:08, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
 * You already had added a cn tag in that same paragraph, so the one I removed was referring to one sentence. Tetra quark (talk) 15:19, 24 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Instead of arguing about it, I suggest that one of you (or both of you) work to add the needed citations. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 15:25, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
 * As I said, I have tried. What TQ thinks is another cn tag is actually a clarification tag. The text says that something was noted earlier, and I couldn't find that. Myrvin (talk) 15:56, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The main difference between us - and it's an argument I keep on having = is that I think the paragraph needs a citation, and TQ doesn't. Since you've shown an interest, what do you think? Myrvin (talk) 16:38, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I think you are right, this needs buttressing with citations. TQ can you supply these? Otherwise, it might be worth prompting an expert. Failing that, I will look into it myself. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 16:55, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Expert attention please: Elaboration and Citation
Following on from the above exchange about citation tags, I'm opening this discussion section to try to alert experts in the field of cosmology that a (possibly slight) amount of attention is needed to the sections on Cosmic acceleration, Primordial gas cloud, and the Flatness problem. Thank you, Isambard Kingdom (talk) 17:46, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Does somebody know how to cross link this to Cosmology? Isambard Kingdom (talk) 17:47, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't know about cross linking, but you might try repeating this on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cosmology. Myrvin (talk) 19:52, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Discussion of capitalization of universe
There is request for comment about capitalization of the word universe at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters. Please participate. SchreiberBike talk 00:30, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Loose ends
My observations about some loose ends within the article:

1. Black body radiation of cosmic microwave background: What is the significance, specifically for the Big Bang, of the fact that this radiation follows a black body curve? This is not explained in the article.

2. How do we connect the Big Bang (per se) with the large-scale structure of the universe? Perhaps this is difficult to answer, but I don't see how an explosion from an idealized singularity results in spatial clumping of matter.

3. Some statements in the lead need some very slight elaboration. We are not looking for a long lead, but, instead, some foreshadowing of the content in the main body of the article. One thing that needs to be put into the mix of the lead is a statement about dark matter and dark energy. Can one say that with dark energy and the accelerating expansion of the universe that the Big Bang is, effectively, still occurring?

Anyway, that is my to-do list. Can some editors familiar with these topics please contribute to discussion? Thank you, Grandma (talk) 00:12, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
 * it is good you lay out the challenges like that. I cannot help, but maybe a request from the scientific community might be a good port of call. --Inayity (talk) 12:16, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

The article says "at some moment all of space was contained in a single point". What caused the first point? What energy created the fist point? What was the cause of the bang? The line "which can be considered the "birth" of our universe." From what or whom was the universe birthed? Birthing is not done to ones self. Please Clarify --Kaptinavenger (talk) 18:14, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Indeed nor does this article explain how big bangers explain the problem of entropy. If the BB happened it does not rid itself of Entropy. The stuff before the big bang had to have been more complex than the stuff after, what is the cause of the stuff? --Kaptinavenger (talk) 18:22, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

"Disproven"?
I've just read an article on msn.com that said that Canadian and Egyptian scientists have debunked and "utterly disproven" the Big Bang theory as well as the Dark Energy theory by coming up with a solution for quantum gravity called the "Ali-Das model". The basic premise is that the Big Bang's singularity would violate Occam's razor for being "too complicated" for our observations of the universe, and that the expansion we see would be due to the fact that the universe would be full of a quantum fluid made up of (anti-?)gravitons which cause the universe's expansion. Thus, the Big Bang would be "disproven" and the universe has "always been around", and because this new theory would connect quantum mechanics to General Relativity, it would be pretty much the ToE. Worth mentioning in any way? (PS: It's kinda funny how 90% of the comments to the article consist of, "I've always known it was wrong, because the Big Bang is nowhere to be found in the Bible!") --87.180.222.141 (talk) 17:09, 11 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Said msn.com article links to this sort-of more in-depth article on phys.org: It seems that Ali and Das originally had no intent to dabble in cosmology and simply applied Bohmian trajectories on quantum tunneling to the Raychaudhuri equation on motion of nearby matter within the General Relativity context of black hole formation, and suddenly got the Friedmann equations on the expansion of the universe as the result. The model's graviton quantum particles form a Bose-Einstein condensate allowing for characteristics such as superfluidity, superconductivity, and coherence even at large macroscopic distances. --87.180.222.141 (talk) 20:37, 11 February 2015 (UTC)


 * "Worth mentioning in any way". No. Wikipedia aims to be a serious encyclopedia, that means we don't just alter major articles on the basis of shoddy journalism (seriously, who puts out an article claiming the big bang theory might be wrong without even asking another physicist to comment, it reminds me of those articles claiming black holes don't exist despite the observational evidence that they do), Second Quantization (talk) 22:19, 11 February 2015 (UTC)


 * The fact that it's published in at least two peer-reviewed scientific journals (one of them being Physics Letters B) doesn't count for anything? Plus, one of its authors is obviously authoritative enough in the field of astrophysics to serve as a source for our article compact star, see Compact_star, and another paper based on this model and co-written by another scientist (who's also already published in peer-reviewed journals before, including Physical Review and Classical and Quantum Gravity) has also already appeared. --87.180.222.141 (talk) 23:03, 11 February 2015 (UTC)


 * What are the two peer-reviewed journals? I only see one (Phys. Rev. B, Arxiv is not a journal, just a warehouse). I think main point, here, is that we don't need to reference every new paper that gets published (they are published all the time), but, instead, give a good overall account of general scientific consensus. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 23:29, 11 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Well, the second I already linked, it's Phys.org, edited by yet more scientists and science journalists. There's, where somebody tries to interprete the paper differently by directly contradicting one of the paper's authors explicit statement that there never was a "crunch" or "collapse". --87.180.222.141 (talk) 23:43, 11 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Of course Phys.org isn't a journal at all. Why all this enthusiasm for somehow including stuff from this one paper in Phys. Rev. when, like I say, new papers are published all the time? Isambard Kingdom (talk) 23:49, 11 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Just as a general point about Phys.org (arstechnica.com, nature.com and science.com have better quality news which is freely available). Did you notice Phys.org didn't actually get opinions from anyone outside the authors? That's a general recipe for bad science journalism, Second Quantization (talk) 15:55, 13 February 2015 (UTC)


 * "one of its authors is obviously authoritative enough in the field of astrophysics to serve as a source for our article compact star". Cosmology != stellar physics. Are you sure you know how to read the article in Phys Rev B and judge it's due weight if you conflate the two?
 * "who's also already published in peer-reviewed journals" and what? I would expect a scientist to have published in journals. This is setting a pretty low bar to inclusion.
 * "The fact that it's published in at least two peer-reviewed scientific journals doesn't count for anything" Phys.org is not a journal as already pointed out. You are comparing 1 paper against the mountain of others which are published. You are trying to heighten an uncited paper above what is due to it based on the thousands of other papers in the field based on a badly written phys.org article which you confused with a scientific journal. That is not a good basis for an edit.
 * Look. This is an encyclopedia and we give prominence to the mainstream views about every topic. We don't heighten the impact of a single paper beyond the recognition it has gotten from the scientific community. If the paper is taken seriously by the relevant scientific community in a few years it will trickle through we will see and then things will be updated accordingly. An encyclopaedia like this is meant to lag behind the sources, not jump ahead and try divine if latest paper X is suitable. See the distinction between primary, secondary and tertiary sources, Second Quantization (talk) 15:24, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Lead sentence definition
The question has been posed as to whether or not the first sentence in this article needs to be fixed so that it doesn't claim that the Big Bang is, per se, about "birth of the universe." Another question has been asked about whether or not the universe emerged from an initial "singularity".

In this context, it might might be worth comparing the lead of this article


 * "The Big Bang theory is the prevailing cosmological model for the birth of the universe."

with that of chronology of the Universe


 * "The chronology of the Universe describes the history and future of the universe according to Big Bang cosmology, the prevailing scientific model of how the Universe developed over time from the Planck epoch, using the cosmological time parameter of comoving coordinates. The instant in which the Universe is thought to have begun rapidly expanding from a singularity is known as the Big Bang."


 * Sorry, signature was forgotten. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 02:01, 14 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I've no idea who wrote this. No signature. But anyway, the singularity is not part of the big bang model, Second Quantization (talk) 01:56, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I should note that many scientists don't make the distinction in popular science because pedagogically it's a real pain in the ass trying to explain it and it really is useful to talk about periods after the "beginning" since it's well defined. Second Quantization (talk) 10:19, 14 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I can accept Second Quantization's statement that "An encyclopaedia like this is meant to lag behind the sources, not jump ahead and try divine if latest paper X is suitable." This adequately answers my earlier edit request. The issues of "birth of universe" and "singularity" are just distractions, so I vote to just keep the lead sentence as is. Fairedit (talk) 02:31, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

To Whom It May Concern
There appears to be False balance in some important articles cf. Supernatural Creation Power. I see a clear writing style in these articles that is very easy to follow. As opposed to Evolution and Big Bang theory which are lacking in Plain English though full of WP:PEA. Which to me infers Imago dei please also cf. Line 2 Truth. Your thoughts are greatly appreciated. --Considering Wormwood 04:54, 15 February 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaptinavenger (talk • contribs)
 * Exactly what puffery is in this article? We strive to be precise here so that necessitates using some scientific terminology. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 05:11, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
 * As I mentioned elsewhere... that's because your first list are not technical articles, and so they don't use technical language. Evolution and Big Bang Theory are highly technical articles concerning a complex scientific subject. You may appreciate Simple Wikipedia, which was created for this very reason.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 06:35, 15 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Indeed, Jess, what I mean to say is that can't the multiple definitions or laymen's terms and technical terms be spelled out clearly by the article? Along side reasonable criticisms, as flawed as they might be, all this bellow a neutral introduction? to Puffery: sentence three "If the known laws of physics are extrapolated beyond where they are valid", extrapolated, beyond, valid, are technical puffery. Simple one liner, in the introduction, "the Big Bang contradicts many observable laws of physics." some true statement like that, could allow some clarity in the beginning, and is backed up by the entire section 6. Also no opposite? The lack of comparable opposite or opposing theory(s) is rare in Theory, particularly given the number of problems. Surly not every cosmologist is giving up on, how, whilst abandoning physics? --Kaptinavenger (talk) 08:12, 15 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Kaptin, saying "the Big Bang contradicts many observable laws of physics." does not compute! Why would we say something that is wrong? Isambard Kingdom (talk) 08:16, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I was going give more indepth advice. But as you are clearly here hoping to push your creationist pov, or something like that I guess. (As it does not seem as pov pushing, but you just poking around.) I will just make one helpful suggestion. Please read Scientific theory as you do not know what theory means when it comes to the context of science. NathanWubs (talk) 08:22, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Extrapolation does not equate to contradiction. "This user believes in creation not evolution" is fine for a userbox but bringing that notion onto talk pages wastes your time and more importantly, the time of those editors who have to correct you. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 08:25, 15 February 2015 (UTC)


 * "If the known laws of physics are extrapolated beyond where they are valid" does not mean "the Big Bang contradicts many observable laws of physics." Those are totally different sentences. It seems you have not understood the technical language used in this article, which reinforces my suggestion that you check out the simple entry.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 08:50, 15 February 2015 (UTC)


 * "Hubble's observations suggested that there was a time, called the big bang, when the universe was infinitesimally small and infinitely dense. Under such conditions all the laws of science, and therefore all ability to predict the future, would break down." and "the Big Bang contradicts many observable laws of physics." say the same thing. though one is from Hawkins A Brief History of Time, full of the puffery of the theorist in defense of his life work, the other is in Basic English cf. ad hominem & Manners --Kaptinavenger (talk) 01:35, 16 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Jeepers, fellas, I'm a landscaper, I build fences, decks, water features and I care for trees'n'schrubs, I love computer programing, I breed Dogs, I have a lovely country farm I get to work on when ever I can. I Really, don't care, what you think of me. It has just been my experience, that the laws of science, don't just break, because some guy says so. --Kaptinavenger (talk) 01:43, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * And it is frustrating listening to you waste other editors' time making incoherent suggestions while making, in my opinion, hypocritical accusations of ad hominems and bad manners because we're trying to parse whatever it is you're trying to say.--Mr Fink (talk) 01:50, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * "Gee, wouldn't that be nice!" --Kaptinavenger (talk) 01:47, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * It would be nicer if you didn't waste everyone's time babbling.--Mr Fink (talk) 01:50, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 March 2015
I would propose to remove the repetitive "is accelerating" in the penultimate sentence of the introduction.

Goodwisher (talk) 10:39, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Notification of request for comment
An RfC has been commenced at MOSCAPS Request for comment - Capitalise universe.

Cinderella157 (talk) 03:23, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

What was one year before the Big Bang?
and what was the size of the universe one year after the Big Bang? What was one kilometer outside this volume? I think, philosophers around the world have not the smallest acceptance for this theory. We can all the time measure a length, a time, a speed. From philosophical point of view the universe can only be infinite. Which theory stands over the other: philosophy or physics? I miss the discussion of this fundamental conflict in the article. Avoiding this discussion, the Big Bang theory appears as a new religion.

Heinzelmann (talk) 11:14, 24 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Please read WP:NOTFORUM. This talk page is for discussing improvements to the article, not for pontificating about the subject. Thanks.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 11:29, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Length of the lead and the article's WP:Featured status
This is what the lead looked like on October 20, 2014. This is what the lead looks like today. The latter is too short, per WP:Lead. How does the latter adequately summarize this article? While editors might feel that the previous four-length paragraph was too long, it was an adequate lead for an article of this size -- a lead worthy of this article's WP:Featured status. Looking at recent edits to this article, I'm not even sure if this article is still WP:Featured quality. I'm stating this not to criticize any particular editor, but to emphasize that, as a WP:Featured article, care should be taken to ensure that this article stays WP:Featured (is deserving of that title). Flyer22 (talk) 00:16, 18 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Flyer22, Can you be more specific about how the present lead is inadequate? Isambard Kingdom (talk) 00:33, 18 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I didn't think the FA criteria included lead length per se. There is WP:LEADLENGTH (this article is 41kb, which corresponds to "three to four paragraphs"), but that's explicitly only a suggestion. Just looking at it briefly, I do think the lead would better reflect the article body if more information from the Timeline and Evidence sections were included, so perhaps that could be a way to expand it.  Sunrise    (talk)  00:45, 18 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I added some info about accelerating expansion, dark energy, a citation, and some tune-up of some sentences about Hubble's work. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 12:00, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

See below, "Quote by Lawrence Krauss" for more discussion of the lead of this article. SocraticOath (talk) 16:48, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 February 2015
The Big Bang theory is the prevailing cosmological model for the birth of the universe.[1][2][3] The Big Bang theory has long been the prevailing cosmological model for the birth of the universe.[1][2][3] . . . . The Big Bang theory does not provide any explanation for the initial conditions of the Universe; rather, it describes and explains the general evolution of the Universe going forward from that point on.

The Big Bang theory and its premise that the universe started as a singularity may be based on an incomplete understanding of general relativity, including its relationship to quantum mechanics. In any event, the theory does not provide any explanation for the initial conditions of the Universe; rather, it offers a description and explanation for the general evolution of the Universe going forward from that point on.

Fairedit (talk) 21:28, 11 February 2015 (UTC)


 * That seems unnecessarily convoluted. I just stated it plainly that the theory is about evolving from a high density state onwards. It is not an actual premise of the big bang theory that it started as a singularity. Basing your edit off a just published article (and a rather controversial one at that) for the lead is pretty bad form for wikipedia. Second Quantization (talk) 22:17, 11 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Your edit is an improvement, and I think in time you will see the need to cast further doubt upon a theory that is, of course, premised on a singularity (inasmuch as it purports to be a theory of the birth of the universe).Fairedit (talk) 23:28, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * "..., premised on a singularity ...". It's not.
 * " ... purports to be a theory of the birth of the universe" It isn't (although if you went with the birth analogy, it describes the period post-conception), Second Quantization (talk) 15:51, 13 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Well, there's several issues with the current lead now:
 * a.) In the third sentence, singularity is not linked.
 * b.) That sentence has little rhetoric or logical connection to the prior sentences, i. e. it's not quite clear from the prior sentences or within the context of the entire lead why we're suddenly talking about "extrapolating laws of physics beyond where they are valid".
 * c.) It uses a false definition of singularity. It's only a singularity if it's infinitely dense and infinitely small. --87.180.222.141 (talk) 01:17, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The reason things seem unclear to you is because you have perhaps fundamentally misunderstood things. Simply put, the big bang theory does not state there was a singularity. The universe was in a hot dense state about 13.8 billion years ago. If the laws of physics as we know them (specifically general relativity) are extrapolated further back, they are no longer valid. If we do it anyway, GR would predict a singularity. Since that isn't valid, it actually requires a theory of quantum gravity to extrapolate back. See the section Big_Bang for more details. Second Quantization (talk) 15:11, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

OK, if, as Second Quantization states, the Big Bang theory is not "a theory of the birth of the universe", then the first sentence of the article needs to be changed to something like this: "The Big Bang theory is [or has been] the prevailing cosmological model for the evolution of the universe from a prior state." Fairedit (talk) 18:49, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Second Quantization, and Fairedit I'm curious in your use of the word "evolve" it would seem in the contexts you have provided the english word "devolve" would be more accurate as the hypothesized state of singularity's complexity "Bang" split up into less and less complex things. Also Adam Leemings, the Mythologist, in his book, The Encyclopedia of Creation Myths, describes the Big Bang Theory a "pseudo-scientific cosmic egg myth" on page 240. Thought this might help to clarify things, scientifically. --Kaptinavenger (talk) 13:50, 14 February 2015 (UTC)


 * "Devolution" is not a thing, and certainly not a technical term in this context. To include anything from Adam Leemings like what you've proposed, we would need to see his work's reception within the relevant scientific community. Is he a part of that community? If not, then his opinions could (at best) only be included in a subarticle, such as Religious interpretations of the Big Bang theory  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 09:00, 15 February 2015 (UTC)


 * The term is used because that is standard terminology (Time evolution and also one of the dictionary definitions of the word evolving). Please don't try and tell me what is a more appropriate word when you don't know what you are talking about. The rest of your comment is the same uninformed stupidity, Second Quantization (talk) 20:17, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

I think Fairedit is right: The first sentence doesn't jibe with my understanding of the theory when it uses the phrase "earliest known ..." as something included by the Big Bang theory. I think the first sentence should be re-written to clarify that the "earliest known ...", i.e. the Planck Era, is before the Big Bang theory becomes applicable. On it... SocraticOath (talk) 17:13, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Quote by Lawrence Krauss: "The creation of matter"
I believe that the quote by Lawrence Krauss in the second paragraph may not be true... the Big Bang only describes the evolution of the universe after the hot, dense state... not how the hot, dense state came to be. Thus unless Krauss is describing the conversion of high-energy stuff into matter as "creation", I think that this quote is probably incorrect, or at least misleading. I added the comment about physical laws to avert this misinformation. But maybe it would be much better to stop after the story about the three astrophysicists and take out the quote and my comment both. SocraticOath (talk) 14:26, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, there is some confusion and ambiguity here, part of which is linguistic and part of which, I guess, is philosophical. My understanding: What we call the "big bang" might include the beginning of everything (matter, physical laws, everything), but as a subject of "science" everything breaks down when we try to backward extrapolate to the first moment (time zero) of the existence of the universe. It is, actually, necessarily impossible to backward extrapolate to time zero, since it is at time zero that the laws of physics we are using to make the extrapolation first come into existence. Still, a more general appreciation for all of this can be accommodated within the term "big bang" as a description of very early stages of the universe and it subsequent expansion. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 17:01, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

So you agree with me: we shouldn't use Lawrence Krauss' proclamation including "creation" inside "Big Bang Theory", even though he has considerable clout in this field. I think we do better by removing the quote and my comment both, and push the debate away from the leading paragraphs of the article. SocraticOath (talk) 18:23, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree with you. I also suppose it is good practice to not rest too much on single isolated quotes, even from authorities, as they are sometimes (1) said in a context, (2) said in an attempt to simplifying issues that are, actually, very difficult to summarize, (3) said using words which are, themselves, kind of ambiguous in circumstances like this. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 18:53, 31 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Great... See my changes shortly reflecting this conversation. SocraticOath (talk) 19:42, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

possible FAR
There's already two template in place, and most section needs additional reference, like "Overview", "Cosmic acceleration", "Cosmic microwave background radiation", "Primordial gas clouds", "Dark energy", "Horizon problem" etc.--Jarodalien (talk) 11:51, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

higher harmonics birth cycle
Black Holes and matter evaporate as energy after zillion years. The Universe at it's last moments would have only photons, because only photons and gravitational waves can exist at very low energy levers. When the photons will be spread at an ultimum degree, all relativistic motion will cease. That hole Universe then, mathematically will be equal to a new Big Bang particle. Thus the Universe will change scale of reference, and it will explode to generate particles and galaxies of "higher harmonics". Some physicists though do not consider the new Universe as a high harmonics "event". The scale changes relativistically to the previous Universe, but that relativistic comparison makes no sense since the old Universe is dead! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.84.216.225 (talk) 15:02, 2 July 2015 (UTC)


 * WP:NOTFORUM. Specific suggestions for article improvement, backed up by sources, please.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 15:04, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Suggest reversions, not replies
NOTFORUM is so basic, you are 100% allowed, even encouraged, to revert Talk page comments who bring up their pet ideas here. See WP:TPO. Anything less makes this page a crank magnet. Choor monster (talk) 15:11, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Globular Cluster Age
While of historical interest, it currently sticks out like a sore thumb in our list of related problems in physics since it is the one that has been unequivocally solved while all the rest of the listed problems remain somewhat mysterious at least in part. I don't think it adds much to the discussion of the Big Bang generally. Maybe back in the 1990s when this was an interesting thing, but today the question is simply not on the table anymore and we risk giving it undue weight by highlighting it and not some of the other controversies and supposed "problems" that had cropped up with the consensus model along the way. We could, perhaps, include a sentence or two in the "history" section, but I think it deserves demotion from subsection status. Anyone else agree?

jps (talk) 01:56, 31 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I implemented this change. I also added some details about controversies in the 1970s-1990s over the Hubble Law and the density parameter. jps (talk) 14:07, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Cambridge theoretical cosmologists
I removed this paragraph from the lede:


 * In the mid-20th century, three British astrophysicists, Stephen Hawking, George F. R. Ellis, and Roger Penrose turned their attention to the theory of relativity and its implications regarding our notions of time. In 1968 and 1970, they published papers in which they extended Einstein's theory of general relativity to include measurements of time and space. According to their calculations, time and space had a finite beginning that corresponded to the origin of matter and energy.

This is all, I guess, correct but it is fairly unrelated to the Big Bang theory per se. It's more of just interest to those who are fascinated by the history of thought. I don't think it deserves inclusion at all on this page and, frankly, probably doesn't deserve inclusion anywhere in Wikipedia.

jps (talk) 02:04, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

These papers have everything to do with the Big Bang. They established broad conditions that guaranteed the existence of singularities in models of GR, including cosmological models. On the other hand, the description of those papers as "extending" GR to include "measurements of time and space" is flat out ludicrous. Choor monster (talk) 15:01, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * They are only related in the sense of providing conditions under which Big Bang universes occur generally. These papers are fairly incidental to the overall theory, however, which was elucidated to the level necessary by the earliest relativists. jps (talk) 15:53, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * And the relevant point is we apparently live in a universe where their conditions apply. That's not "incidental". Choor monster (talk) 15:58, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * No, that's not what interested the three of them the most in the two above cited papers. They were more interested in existence proofs rather than any attachment to the precise conditions of our universe. These investigations of Big Bang singularity conditions turned out to be not all that important in retrospect, especially with the subsequent development of inflation which can, in some formulations, completely miss the singularity. jps (talk) 16:44, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * You pretty much don't have a clue. The whole point was that singularities were inevitable, no matter what the "precise" conditions were.  That was a major shock at the time.  Physicists just didn't believe in singularities no matter what, and offered any old just-so story or back-of-the-envelope calculation why they didn't happen.  It was Penrose's 1965 mathematical theorems regarding Einsteinian collapse that brought them to physicists' obligatory attention.  Hawking time-reversed the work and applied it to the Big Bang.  Before them, something like Gamow's Ylem was taken seriously.  The perturbation calculations of Lifshitz-Khalatnikov were taken seriously.  The work of Penrose, Hawking, and others changed everything.
 * Meanwhile, this is Wikipedia. We rely on what the RS tell us.  Not our personal gut feelings and misinterpretations.  And they tell us what I'm telling you:


 * The first two are popular books. The last two are introductory technical.
 * At this rate, there really is nothing left to discuss. I am putting the paragraph and references back in, but rewritten to avoid the silly stuff. Choor monster (talk) 17:41, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Offer quotes, page numbers, and direct connection of these existence theorems to the overall subject and we can discuss how to incorporate them into the article text. Trying to attach them to the lede is irresponsible per WP:MOSINTRO. jps (talk) 18:45, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * You're being ridiculous and childish. I gave four sources on the relevance.  Look them up yourself: they all have indices, and they all make the claims I stated.
 * Whether they belong in the lede or not is a different discussion. It's certainly not irresponsible, it may simply be inappropriate.  They were in the lede before, so I suggest you apply BRD and not edit-war.  Choor monster (talk) 18:59, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * At this rate, there really is nothing left to discuss. I am putting the paragraph and references back in, but rewritten to avoid the silly stuff. Choor monster (talk) 17:41, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Offer quotes, page numbers, and direct connection of these existence theorems to the overall subject and we can discuss how to incorporate them into the article text. Trying to attach them to the lede is irresponsible per WP:MOSINTRO. jps (talk) 18:45, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * You're being ridiculous and childish. I gave four sources on the relevance.  Look them up yourself: they all have indices, and they all make the claims I stated.
 * Whether they belong in the lede or not is a different discussion. It's certainly not irresponsible, it may simply be inappropriate.  They were in the lede before, so I suggest you apply BRD and not edit-war.  Choor monster (talk) 18:59, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

They don't belong in the lede, and the current wording is poorly chosen for the body of the work too. I'll try to incorporate, but I can't make any promises. jps (talk) 19:05, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * This is about as good as I can do. The relevance of this particular idea is not all that much appreciated anymore, but I don't object to this as part of the story. A single sentence seems about the weight appropriate. In the lede, it does not belong. jps (talk) 19:12, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * It's extremely appreciated: all modeling takes the Hawking-Penrose singularity seriously. They have to, it's a theorem, not a model you can pick and choose your way through.  Typically one just starts after the singularity (usual), or else rewrites everything (continuous inflation, ekpyrotic model).  And as I explained to you, and the sources I cited above state, it was an extremely important part in changing people's expectations of what "Big Bang models" were supposed to look like even. Choor monster (talk) 19:22, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, except no one does those kinds of out-of-the-box big bang cosmologies anymore. Now it's all "inflationary landscape" this and "brane cosmology" that. Why even Hawking's imaginary time universe manages to avoid the singularity through an appeal to an additional degree of freedom. My point is that the theorem applies for a limited class of models which are now not seen as expansive enough to allow for a proper explication of all that is necessary in cosmological modeling. One could make the argument that "big bang" as properly understood must include a singularity, but in the way the term "Big Bang" is most often used in the literature today this is simply not the case. jps (talk) 19:31, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * And no one goes into contortions avoiding singularities anymore. Same with black holes.  On a tangent, I'll mention the 1979 Schoen-Yau proof of the positive mass conjecture relied on their 2D extension of Penrose's 1D methods. Choor monster (talk) 19:50, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Christian beginning of theory
Should be some inclusion of how the Big Bang theory is Christian, and is different from all the other theories which posit an infinite regress in time. Also that it was invented by Georges Lemaître, who was a Catholic priest 182.255.99.214 (talk) 12:59, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * As in "God said, let there be light, and there was light", corresponding to the "BANG"! :D lol 182.255.99.214 (talk) 13:00, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Of course not. It's Jewish.  The original is וַיֹּאמֶר אֱלֹהִים, יְהִי אוֹר; וַיְהִי-אוֹר.  Choor monster (talk) 14:50, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Choor monster! Isambard Kingdom (talk) 14:54, 8 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Theories don't have a religion. Though I wouldn't mind a bit more on the history of the theory - specifically its initial rejection by atheists because they thought it pointed to the existence of a deity. Farsight001 (talk) 18:14, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * They were right, it does :p
 * Refer Kalam cosmological argument. ··gracefool&#128172; 22:38, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Beyond where they are valid
This sentence in the lede does not make any sense to me. It reads like a mash-up of two or more concepts. (I'm sure I've come across this phrasing at times, and I'm sure I've said things like this without thinking too.) First, I assume "the known laws of physics" is essentially just a euphemism for General Relativity. Such vagueness is poor form. Meanwhile, note that GR contains a singularity, per Penrose-Hawking, without any "extrapolation". GR is still "valid" at the singularity, it's just something that most physicists strongly dislike. In fact, if you extrapolate GR "beyond where it is valid", presumably meaning "beyond where it has been tested", down to the quantum level, then GR itself has broken down, and it's unclear anyone should be saying there is a singularity in this context. Perhaps something like would be more meaningful and accurate. Choor monster (talk) 15:57, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
 * If the known laws of physics are extrapolated beyond where they are valid, there is a singularity.
 * If General Relativity is assumed valid on an arbitrarily small scale, there is a singularity.
 * Go ahead and be bold! ··gracefool&#128172; 04:24, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
 * But GR certainly is not valid at a singularity, not because physicists don't like it, but because the mathematics used to define GR breakdown. (GR could in principle be valid right up to the singularity though. TR 22:55, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Experts please check this publication.
[http://phys.org/news/2015-02-big-quantum-equation-universe.html No Big Bang? Quantum equation predicts universe has no beginning] Proxima Centauri (talk) 18:19, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Rename article ---> "Big Bang Theory"
At the moment this is a heavily biased article about a scientific theory. The Big Bang is a theory only and this article should reflect this fact. Instead the article's written like it's a proven fact and reads like a PR handout.

The first change should be the name changed to "Big Bang Theory" to highlight that this is a theory of the universe. Then the article can go on from there.

You just cost me six thousand dollars (talk) 23:05, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Please read Scientific theory first. Thanks. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 23:08, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Concur with Isambard. I might point out that the theory of gravity and cell theory are also, obviously, theories.  And yet we can see with our own eyes a thing fall to the ground, or see individual cells with a microscope and know for a fact that they are real.  That does not preclude then from also being theories.Farsight001 (talk) 23:13, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, and neither does it preclude this article from being renamed the 'Big Bang theory' rather than 'Big Bang'. There are plenty of wikipedia articles on scientific theories which state they're theories in the titles see ---> Quantum field theory, Atomic theory and your aforementioned Cell theory.

What needs to be made very clear is that the Big Bang is a theoretical model - which has great difficulty in being validated through observation. Moreover there's plenty of evidence against it which this article needs to reflect. In fact we're at the stage of paradigm collapse where the amount of anomalies are starting to topple the theory.

If the page is edited with a more sceptical tone now it'll save a bigger rewrite when telescopes start seeing galaxies and stars more that 14 billion years old - which they're bound to as soon as the technology becomes available.

You just cost me six thousand dollars (talk) 23:44, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * The Big Bang's successful prediction of the cosmic microwave background isn't enough for you? Isambard Kingdom (talk) 00:00, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Please provide reliable sources that demonstrate the Big Bang Theory being disproven before asking for the article rewritten. Otherwise, please do not engage in prophecy-making--Mr Fink (talk) 00:15, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Did you read what I wrote before replying? I didn't say it's been 'disproven'. I said it's a theory - one in the opinion of many scientists and lay people with big problems. The article should reflect the fact that it's one theoretical model which it doesn't at the moment. It should fully reflect the problems with the theory with regards to inflation, dark matter, age of the universe etc. I'm not saying that the article should be re written as a critique of the Big Bang theory or that it's claims of success like the supposed CMB prediction shouldn't be included. Rather that the article should start to reflect the fact that it's a theoretical model that's associated with numerous problems.

You just cost me six thousand dollars (talk) 00:46, 23 February 2016 (UTC)


 * While the evidence for the Big Bang convinces you and me and undoubtedly most of the editors, the relevant fact for Wikipedia is that it is the consensus of the experts. If someone wants to dispute the Big Bang, there are appropriate places to do that.  TomS TDotO (talk) 00:42, 23 February 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm agreeing that the relevant fact that it's about consensus of experts and that's what this article should reflect. I think most scientists even if they're supportive of the Big Bang model would agree that it's a theory but this article and many others related to it take it as a proven. I'm arguing that these articles need to reflect this consensus that it's a theory. And in this article specifically there needs to be more references to the fact that it's a theory, that there isn't a consensus about the veracity of the big bang, and that more weight needs to be given to problems with the theory.

You just cost me six thousand dollars (talk) 00:54, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Are you aware you're conflating "theory" with "hypothesis"?--Mr Fink (talk) 01:24, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

You know, I used the examples above for a reason. There is a Gravity article and a Cell article. There is also the Atom article to go with your atomic theory. And as Mr Fink said, you seem to be conflating theory with hypothesis. A theory is, basically, "a body of evidence that helps explain an observed phenomenon." The "observed phenomenon" is the important part of that definition for you. The big bang is not just a "theoretical model". That's quantum field theory, which is what is misnamed, IMO.Farsight001 (talk) 01:40, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Although, I disagree completely with the OP's arguments (The article as it stands is a fair representation of scientific concensus), there are a number of reasons why "Big bang theory" would be a better title: TR 09:25, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) Big bang is mostly used as an adjective: Big bang theory, big bang cosmology, big bang singularity, etc. It is clear what any of those noun phrases mean. It is however completely unclear what anyone would mean when using "big bang" as a noun by itself. More importantly, the meaning of "big bang" as a noun is completely besides the point of the current article. Whatever it is, it is only a small ingredient of the theory as a whole. By calling it "big bang" we are setting the expectation of the reader that (s)he will get the answer to the question: "what is the big bang?" (which we do not really provide).
 * 2) Contrary to what the OP seems to believe calling something a theory is not in some sense a diminutive. It is simply a descriptive of a set of coherent ideas (in this case, cosmic expansion, an early hot and dense phase, etc.) We have many "theory" articles including quantum field theory, group theory, etc. Calling "quantum field theory" a theory does not detract from its validity as the most successful and well-tested description of nature that we have come up with.
 * Not that I am in any way affiliated with this article, but I agree with TimothyRias, for his reasons. However, I wonder if something like Big Bang Physics or The Big Bang or Big Bang Cosmology or Big Bang Cosmogenesis wouldn't work just as well.  (20040302 (talk) 11:24, 23 February 2016 (UTC))
 * For usage as a noun, I just think of the Big Bang as the event/process which is described by the Big Bang theory. I'd agree that answering this question more clearly in the text would be a good thing. I'd still oppose using the word "theory," especially in the title, because there are people who interpret the word as a diminutive, so using it can perpetuate that misconception. <b style="color:#F60;font-family:Times New Roman">Sunrise</b> <i style="font-size:11px">(talk)</i> 11:26, 23 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Sunrise, yes - but as you have written, it's The Big Bang. There is a reasonable argument to rename the article to "The Big Bang", or something similar. References to this article almost always precede the link with the word "The", because of the adjectival nature of the phrase. It is necessary for us (in English) to Nominalise it - cf. Nominalized adjective. (20040302 (talk) 11:36, 23 February 2016 (UTC))
 * That would go against typical WP naming policy though.TR 13:33, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
 * TimothyRias, yes agreed. Bearing that in mind, I believe that we can leave the article title as-is.  I guess it's a bit like the case of Universe which is almost always qualified as "The Universe".  As to which is the correct proper noun, I leave that to you. (20040302 (talk) 15:07, 23 February 2016 (UTC))
 * Isn't there a wiki policy discouraging naming articles with "The" at the start? So, we don't have an article called "The solar system", but we do have one called "solar system". Same for lots of other things .... Isambard Kingdom (talk) 15:07, 25 February 2016 (UTC)


 * ISTM that titles beginning with "little words" like "the" are about books, films, songs and such which carry that exact title. Things, events, concepts are not normally searched for with "little words". In any case, a title should not be changed in such a trivial way. And a title should not be changed unless there is a compelling reason for it. All of the fine points can be discussed in the body of the article. The title is just a means of directing the reader to the information that is being sought, and as such should remain stable. A title should not be a tool to try to raise a controversy.   TomS TDotO (talk) 14:18, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps this video will help you understand: Why the Big Bang Definitely Happened  nagual  design   06:33, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

The term "Big Bang Model" refers to the (very well-confirmed) theory of the expansion of the universe after the Big Bang, rather than to the Big Bang singularity itself. Lelouch Di Britannia (talk) 13:04, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Sean M. Carroll's Big Bang particle decay
Sean M. Carroll claimes (among other proposals) that the Big Bang particle is a result of ubiquitous superluminal point expansion and it instantaneously explodes into a new Universe. Maybe we have a series of weird particles, but Sean hasn't yet reveal any promising mathematical model to support it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:587:4104:1700:826:EF95:84DB:6C30 (talk) 00:43, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Article camouflages Big Bang's "initial mass" problem behind less significant ones
Should not we add the problem of "initial mass" as the first item right before "Baryon asymmetry"? Korablino (talk) 19:53, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Go ahead and be bold. ··gracefool &#128172; 00:53, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Picture of Big Bang - What is represented by the black background?
Hi,

When publishing or reprinting pictures representing the big bang sequence, I suppose it would be fair to question the message of the picture. So here goes.

The pictures seem to place the big bang on a black background. Why is the background black? I suppose the black color means "something"... but according to the Big Bang that part of the illustration is probably more correctly called "not something"... not space or vacuum with its fluctuations and dark matter & energy, not an extension of Cartesian coordinates flat or otherwise... not just nothing but physically-unmeasured scientifically-unknown opaque mysterious extra-Planck-era absence beyond zero.

Does anybody have any ideas how to show this idea or at least carve it out of today's available pedagogical materials in writing? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.178.24.2 (talk) 17:45, 19 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Seems like a reasonable question, but when I had a look to see which image you were referring to I noted that almost all the images on the page use black to represent the space between galaxies and/or have a black background that does not form part of the subject matter, but is simply a background. So which image did you mean, specifically?  nagual  design   20:41, 19 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Specifically, the background... showing something bright in a field of black implies that there was something in a specific place that is not at the rest of the place that is shown... it's there, where the brightness is, not there, where the picture is dark. But my contention is, "not there" in this context refers to "worse than nothing" and the diagram showing blackness at "not there" places the brightness at the center of a spatial field that doesn't exist.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.178.24.2 (talk) 20:57, 19 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Which image are you referring to?  nagual  design   21:45, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Engvar
This page says the article uses British English, but after having a quick look, it's clearly in American. Was the use of British ever established? Which is the "correct" form of English here? I'm not sure if I ought to be bold and change it. Adam9007 (talk) 21:52, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I've been through the history, and User:Kkm010 added the UK English tag with this edit. Looking at the article at the time, it's obviously in American. It seems the tag was added in error. Shall I change it? Adam9007 (talk) 19:51, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
 * No problem you can add American English tag.--<b style="color:navy">kkm 010 </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 03:43, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I believe American was the first to be consistently established anyway. Tag changed. Adam9007 (talk) 23:25, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

The Big Bang/Bit Bang began from an omnisingularity (not a point-like singularity)
ADMINSTRATOR: The second sentence of the opening of the article should be tweaked to... The model accounts for the fact that the Universe began from a singularity and expanded from a very high density and high temperature state. 2601:589:4705:C7C0:2CB9:1829:FE1B:E64B (talk) 14:38, 20 May 2016 (UTC)


 * I disagree. The Big Bang model does not countenance any singularity because of the breakdown of the laws of physics during the Planck Era.  The Big Bang model takes us from the end of the Planck Era to the present.  Only another model can take us from the singularity to the end of the Planck Era.  Otherwise, it would not be a model, but speculation.108.171.135.170 (talk) 17:30, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Abundance of primordial elements
The figures given seem wrong. For H-2 I have seen 6*10^-5. The reference given is from 1988. A bit old perhaps? Asgrrr (talk) 23:04, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Big Bang
Nowadays the universe expands superluminally (faster than the speed of light in the classic - not extremely distorted - void) if we select very afar points to calculate their mutual receding. Dark energy is not "matter" but the result of the entropical diffusion of probabilistic cohesion that (exactly because it is probabilistic) statistically transforms virtual particles into actual ones, and the space expands trying to smoothen any curvature created in the process (at large omnigalactic scales, because there are galactic and black hole spatial curves). That dark energy forces space to expand faster and faster, so in our initial example - in the afar future - we wouldn't have to select two very afar points to observe superlumic expansion, but instead any single point inside the universe. Then the spatial superlumic expansion wouldn't be relativistic (among different points or objects) but absolute. These infinite superluminally expanding points wouldn't be able to express subpoint (smaller than a point) expansion. Subpoints don't actually exist, but we can describe them as complex holographic numbers (a holographic coordinate is a single number that codes/condenses all tensor component numbers as one) that have an imaginary part. That subpoint energy in the real world is expressed as a force that allows a humongous number of virtual particles to become actual by transferring them enough energy to overcome the quantum noise potentiality threshold and reach the actuality quantum state energy levels. Virtual particles are (potentially) infinite (infinity is a potentiality and a tendency, not something static and fixed). We call this process Big Bang. This is an old mainstream physics idea. All we have to do is to improve our types by combining various mathematical formulations. The main article is very philological. We need more mathematical types, not more rhetoric.


 * Note that never superlumic expansion becomes absolute/of single points (it is constantly relativistic though if we compare any two points that recede fast enough via their intermediate spatial darkenergetic expansion). Exactly because the superlumic expansion never becomes absolute, the only way that excessive energy gets expressed is via the Big Bang mechanism.


 * Talk pages are not a forum to discuss the article's subject, but talk about ways of improving the article. "Very philological" and "more rhetoric" are vague.  Do you have specific examples?  Does this involve avoiding being too technical?  If you have reliable sources for "mathematical formulations" to be added, just add them to the article (along with cites).
 * Also, please sigh your posts with ~ . Thanks.
 * --A D Monroe III (talk) 14:57, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Edit 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.

216.167.157.38 (talk) 19:51, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Cannolis (talk) 01:24, 18 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? 108.171.135.170 (talk) 20:17, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Big Bang/Bit Bang was an explosion of energy and information due to Dark Energy Maximum Tension Event (DEMTE) or Hubble Parameter Explosion (HPE) of a previous dying universe
Dr. Seth Lloyd wrote in his book Programming the Universe that "the Big Bang was an explosion of energy and information - a Bit Bang." 73.85.203.175 (talk) 15:30, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Turbulence?
Hey, this doesn't seem right:

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.[10][11][12]

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? 108.171.135.170 (talk) 16:01, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

✅ 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."  168.88.65.6 (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)

I dispute this article's neutrality.
I changed Since Georges Lemaître first noted, in 1927, that an expanding universe might be traced back in time to an originating single point, to In 1927, Georges Lemaître said that an expanding universe might be traced back in time to an originating single point,. That is grammatically correct. Why do we need the word first in first noted?


 * "First noted" would confuse some readers. Since "first said" would suggest that those were his first words, when many of us don't actually remember our first words, why is "first" there? What does "noted" mean? Why is saying "Since 1929" better than "In 1929"? See WP:RELTIME

I changed In 1929, from analysis of galactic redshifts, Edwin Hubble concluded that galaxies are drifting apart; this is important observational evidence consistent with the hypothesis of an expanding universe. In 1965 the cosmic microwave background radiation was discovered, which was crucial evidence in favor of the Big Bang model, since that theory predicted the existence of background radiation throughout the universe before it was discovered. More recently, measurements of the redshifts of supernovae indicate that the expansion of the universe is accelerating, to In 1929, from analysis of galactic redshifts, Edwin Hubble stated that galaxies are drifting apart; there is observational evidence consistent with the hypothesis of an expanding universe. In 1965 the cosmic microwave background radiation was discovered, which was evidence in favor of the Big Bang model, since that theory predicted the existence of background radiation throughout the universe before it was discovered. Measurements of the redshifts of supernovae indicate that the expansion of the universe is accelerating,


 * "Concluded" suggests that Hubble's statement is a final conclusion that will never need updating, when in reality it can still be debunkable.


 * "Crucial" is not supported by any sources and is not necessary wording. Wikipedia shouldn't state that anything is important or irrelevant. See WP:EDITORIAL.


 * "More recently" would not make sense to a reader in the year 3000 if redshift observations in supernovae stops in the middle of the 21st century. See WP:RELTIME.

DVdm says there are grammatical errors, but he failed to specify where. I made a few edits instead of many edits and he still reverted the whole thing. He should've compared my revisions and used the CTRL-F tool. We can debate and have a consensus about this and use Wikipedia policies and guidelines to support our reasoning. --Turkeybutt (talk) 21:42, 4 September 2016 (UTC)


 * No, in your edit you canged the first sentence from "Since Georges Lemaître first noted, in 1927, that an expanding universe might be traced back in time to an originating single point, scientists have built on his idea of cosmic expansion." to There was nothing wrong with the original sentence, so there was no need to change it. There is however something grammatically wrong with your version. Note, in your edit, the comma to separate the two sentences that were originally connected by a conjunction ("since"). You removed the conjunction and left a crippled sentence in the article.
 * The other points:
 * "First noted" is there because it is a fact that Lemaître first noted it. If you don't know what noted means, you might try a dictionary:.
 * "Since 1929" is relative to an absolute time in the past, so it is absolute. WP:RELTIME is about relative to now.
 * "Concluded" does not suggest that Hubble's statement is a final conclusion that will never need updating. It says that Hubble concluded something. It is a fact that Hubble concluded something.
 * "Crucial" is supported by tons of sources. If you would know anything about the subject, you would know that. See, for instance Google Scholar and Google Books. If you think that something is unsourced and you question it, then please look for a source, and if you don't know where or how to look, then please ask for a source. Do not just impose your ignorance by removing relevant content. Here's how we do it:
 * "More recently" is relative to the discovery of the CMBR, which again is makes it absolute. Please look at the context before you make changes.
 * - DVdm (talk) 08:09, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Picture of Big Bang
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.

168.88.65.6 (talk) 13:44, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I would dissagree Gary &#34;Roach&#34; Sanderson (talk) 18:22, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Abbreviations
@DVdm, Hi. I am Worldandhistory, we have interacted before, about this particular information; "While the scientific community was once divided between supporters of two different expanding universe theories, the Big Bang and the Steady State theory, accumulated empirical evidence provides strong support for the former." uses abbreviations that are too confusing and ambiguous. Can you please re-write it? - Worldandhistory (talk) 15:33, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
 * There are no abbreviations in your quote... Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 15:42, 28 September 2016 (UTC)


 * As this does not seem related to the previous thread, I have added a new section header.
 * I haven't written that sentence, but to me nothing in it seems confusing or ambiguous, and it seems to be properly sourced. I also don't see any abbreviations in that sentence. - DVdm (talk) 15:53, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank you Headbomb for correcting my blunder. @DVdm, I did not say you wrote it sir, I asked you if you can re-write it. Sorry for using the word "abbreviations" but since you are good with grammar I thought maybe you can write it in simple wordings. This may confuse average readers. Thanks - Worldandhistory (talk) 16:15, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I think the whole lead could use a re-write, especially for a FA. There's a lot of repetition between the two paragraphs.  Perhaps the first paragraph should explain what the Big Bang is and what its implications are (initial singularity, 13.8 bya, a brief history of the universe), and the second should explain the evidence for it and the phenomena it explains (cosmic background radiation, redshifts/expansion of the universe, comparison to steady-state theory). Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 03:08, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 October 2016
in islam its written "allah has created all thingS by saying "KUN" then each and every thing started" I think KUN means big bang

159.113.200.5 (talk) 13:56, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: as you have not cited reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 14:10, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Big Bang. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141130184142/http://rhig.physics.yale.edu:80/M_article_11_2005.pdf to http://rhig.physics.yale.edu/M_article_11_2005.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 23:10, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Universal particle fragmentation
Universal particle fragmentation (another term for Big Bang). A single particle fragmented (became subdivided), thus homogeneity and isotropy are fundamental adiabatic scalar decay/phase transition properties. That universal particle was a product of a phase transition of the ultra empty (thus maximally hot because it was maximally cold and that caused a phase transition) void of an old dying universe.


 * Not all mentioned in the main article. the fact something is silly, retarded or you don't like it doesn't mean we should censor Wikipedia. If you are strict, simply say fewer words about what you consider moronic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:587:410F:A900:BC5A:5B78:BB19:E344 (talk) 08:00, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Fully protected edit request on 30 November 2016
A protected redirect, Big bang needs redirect category (rcat) templates adjusted. Please modify it as follows:


 * from this:


 * 1) REDIRECT Big Bang


 * to this:


 * 1) REDIRECT Big Bang

The Redirect category shell template is used to sort redirects into one or more categories. When pp-protected and/or pp-move suffice, the Redirect category shell template will detect the protection level(s) and categorize the redirect automatically. (Also, the categories will be automatically removed or changed when and if protection is lifted, raised or lowered.) Thank you in advance!  Paine Ellsworth  u/ c  00:55, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
 * WHEN YOU COPY & PASTE, PLEASE LEAVE THE SKIPPED LINE BLANK FOR READABILITY.
 * Yes check.svg Done &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:28, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you again, Martin, for everything!  Paine   11:26, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Spelling error
"as been as" in the following sentence:

Alternative theories have been proposed that do not require a large amount of undetected matter but instead modify the laws of gravity established by Newton and Einstein, but no alternative theory as been as successful as the cold dark matter proposal in explaining all extant observation.

Done. Layla (talk) 15:37, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

How long did the big bang last?
Can we answer this in the article? People in ##astronomy in chat.freenode.net IRC said it's still going on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Darsie42 (talk • contribs) 10:40, 22 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Please sign all your talk page messages with four tildes ( ~ ). Thanks.
 * If we can find a few reliable sources that say something about it (or about a possible controversy regarding this), we could add something about it. - DVdm (talk) 10:51, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Alexander Friedmann vs Georges Lemaître. Who fist?
"Since Georges Lemaître first noted in 1927 that an expanding universe could be traced back in time to an originating single point, scientists have built on his idea of cosmic expansion. While the scientific community was once divided between supporters of two different expanding universe theories, the Big Bang and the Steady State theory, empirical evidence provides strong support for the former." I think George Lemaitre called the " one father of the Big Bang" is very wrong. Friedman's contribution to the development of the Big Bang theory is obvious. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.124.19.173 (talk) 18:57, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 January 2017
Cosmic microwave background was discovered in 1964. But it is given wrong as in 1965. 2405:204:D182:5A8E:290D:8FF5:18B0:943D (talk) 14:46, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅ Polyamorph (talk) 14:53, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 January 2017
Edit: Cosmic background radiation was discovered in 1964. Vishnut77 (talk) 14:26, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format.  JTP (talk • contribs) 14:41, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
 * This was actually done by another editor. Sorry I missed all the years in the previous edit request.Polyamorph (talk) 16:18, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 January 2017
please change The discovery and confirmation of the cosmic microwave background radiation in 1965 to The discovery and confirmation of the cosmic microwave background radiation in 1964 because it is actually discovered in 1964. Vishnu T (talk) 04:26, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 06:30, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅ actually I've made the change. Hopefully all instances of this date have been changed in the article now.Polyamorph (talk) 09:50, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

I would recommend reverting this to 1965, i.e. date of publication of Penzias and Wilson paper at http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1965ApJ...142..419P ; in history of science, the usual convention for "discovery date" is the publication or announcement date, not when the data were first taken. That paper was submitted May 1965, published July 1965. TychosElk (talk) 00:01, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree that's probably the convention in publications but if there is evidence that the actual discovery was made prior to the publication date then for an encyclopedia then that is the date we should use, in my opinion. But I'm open to other peoples views on this. Cheers, Polyamorph (talk) 12:22, 4 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Do you have a citation for the 1964 date? - Parejkoj (talk) 19:23, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
 * A few here:, , .Polyamorph (talk) 14:35, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Also Polyamorph (talk) 16:01, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Percentages of the compounds of the Universe
The percentages of the Universe compounds do not sum up 100%. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.220.195.27 (talk) 00:22, 19 March 2017 (UTC)