Talk:History of the Big Bang theory

Name change
Shouldn't this article be called History of the Theory of the Big Bang. The Bang Bang itself didn't have a history- it was the start of history.--Moonlight Mile 23:12, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree. The name should include "Theory" in the title such as History of the Big Bang Theory 67.124.172.254 21:03, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
 * What shall it be then? History of the theory of the Big Bang or History of the Big Bang theory?--Moonlight Mile 21:55, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Big Bang is a theory as well as the event. From Big Bang, "the Big Bang is the scientific theory..." Xiner (talk, email) 20:44, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Let me suggest this article be re-titled "History of Big Bang" or "History of Big Bang models." As this article already recognizes, Big bang is not a "theory" or even a hpyothesis, but it is a scientific model. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.22.172.158 (talk) 03:41, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Walt Whitman
I was reading Walt Whitman's Song of Myself and I found these lines in part 45:


 * ''"I open my scuttle at night and see the far-sprinkled systems,
 * ''"And all I see multiplied as high as I can cipher edge but the rim of the farther systems.
 * ''"Wider and wider they spread, expanding, always expanding,
 * ''"Outward and outward and forever outward."

---A from L.A. (talk) 09:37, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

first section
Why the first section was made invisible? Pinea (talk) 15:54, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Wait, what? CMB
In section 3, "Late 20th century', the acronym CMB is used. I assume this is in regard to section 2 ("Early 20th Century scientific developments), para 5, cosmic microwave background (radiation). As someone who knows nothing of the subject, though, I do not know if this is correct. If correct, could the acronym "CMB" be inserted in section 2? If incorrect, could section 3's "CMB" acronym be addressed? 71.234.215.133 (talk) 12:18, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

The real development
I suspect Big Bang of today is under more trouble than usually admitted: The Big Bang is usually described as the final victor among cosmological models, but reading behind the lines, it barely survived by merging with Steady State. Rursus dixit. ( m bork3 !) 20:22, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
 * 1. Lemaître formulated the theory,
 * 2. Gamow proponed it,
 * 3. The theory met heavy resistance with Steady State (Fred Hoyle et al.),
 * 4.a. Some important discoveries supported Big Bang before Steady State,
 * 4.b. Big Bang was shown to make predictions that is in discord with observations, and was nearly debunked by [insertme] X, Y and Z,
 * 5. Alan Guth formulated the Inflation theory which essentially saved Big Bang's bacons for a while,
 * 6. Stephen Hawking (?) Paul J. Steinhardt essentially disproved the Inflation theory,
 * 7. Andrei Linde came up with the Eternal Inflation theory, which Fred Hoyle complains is actually another form of Steady State.

Penzias and Wilson
I find it surprising that this article does not mention either Penzias and Wilson - not even in the bibliography. They did provide the first solid experimental evidence of the cosmic microwave background and (as a practicing experimental physicist) it seems to me that they deserve credit for this crucial observation. They did receive the Nobel prize for it. However I am an absolute newbie to Wikipedia and perhaps there is some guideline that I miss here but the discovery of Penzias and Wilson was one of the most important observational confirmations ever. Together their work takes the big bang from speculation to fact. I apologize in advance if this comment is not made in the proper format. I would be happy to receive feed back to my email (luehring@indiana.edu) as to whether this comment is in keeping with your guidelines. Fredluehring (talk) 00:34, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on History of the Big Bang theory. 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/20130117044852/http://www.amnh.org/education/resources/rfl/web/essaybooks/cosmic/p_lemaitre.html to http://www.amnh.org/education/resources/rfl/web/essaybooks/cosmic/p_lemaitre.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 13:11, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

No mention of Ralph Asher Alpher in the article.
He is the one who carried out pioneering work in the early 1950s on the Big Bang model. Please mention in the article. Rizosome (talk) 04:22, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Distinguish Big Bang and universe expansion
We should distinguish two distinct ideas even though they are related: Big Bang is the single event at the beginning of the universe, while universe expansion is the process that has occurred until now and will continue. By separating two distinct ideas like that, we can see that Hubble’s work is about universe expansion but it has nothing to do with Big Bang as many people misunderstand.

So, this article should focus on Big Bang only and, to the extent possible, avoid mentioning universe expansion. Otherwise people will continue to be misled on who is to be recognized for what discovery.

Tam Diep 125.235.239.239 (talk) 02:41, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Missing Quranic verse regarding Big bang theory
Allah was the one who told us about big bang theory in the Great Quran when we didn't know about science and proved he is the creator. 81.100.232.190 (talk) 18:18, 3 January 2023 (UTC)


 * I came here to say this in different words. English translations of Surah Anbiyah 21:30 of the Quran read approximately as "Do the disbelievers not realize that the heavens and earth were ˹once˺ one mass then We split them apart?"
 * It was recorded in the 7th century. It shouldn't be missing from the article. The article also implies that Islam follows the Genesis narrative which is off-topic and misleading. 2600:4040:95B7:3700:29B4:5177:73F1:927C (talk) 22:55, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Not infinite. Factual error.
The first paragraph of this article contains a gross factual error. Our galaxy does not contain a infininte number of other solar systems. Please find a good source that estimates the number of solar systems in our galaxy. 2601:204:F000:A00:281D:F6D0:C5FE:49C5 (talk) 23:02, 2 May 2023 (UTC)