Talk:Big Bang/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

→

Archive 15

Art’s turn

Joke137 is gone for now, and the plasma-ists are at least weary of further explanation to Joshuaschroeder (at least on reverting this article). So maybe they’ll argue with a bean-counting capitalist like me instead. I have no opinion on plasma cosmology, a phrase I first heard a couple weeks ago, but I do prefer the big-bangist version of this article, although I haven’t edit-warred for it.

So why don’t I edit the article to say that Art LaPella hasn’t decided between plasma cosmology and the Big Bang? Readers don’t care about the opinion of Art LaPella or any other Wikipedian. They want to know what the consensus is. . Wikipedia:Neutral point of view doesn’t protect all minority views, or the Earth article would say “According to round-earthers…”.The decision of how much recognition to give plasma cosmology depends only on how popular it is, not on whether we believe it ourselves, not even a little bit. All of you seem familiar with Wikipedia policy, but it’s easier to look important by debating the science than by debating the relative popularity of plasma cosmology The policy doesn’t specify how popular a minority view has to be before it must be included, but the only objective answer has to include determining how relatively popular plasma cosmology really is.

So just how popular is it? Googling plasma and cosmology separately is a better idea than I thought it was a few days ago, because most plasma cosmology articles never use the actual phrase “plasma cosmology”. “Plasma cosmology” as a phrase gets only 34 hits on Google Scholar. Despite populist rhetoric, Google Scholar is the right Google because plasma-ists cite academics like Alfven for authority. But when I asked for articles with the words plasma and cosmology, excluding the phrase “plasma cosmology”, I got 7350 hits. I then checked each entry on Google pages 10 thru 19, and determined/guessed that 7 of them were really about plasma cosmology (the rest were about plasma and about cosmology.) So I estimate plasma cosmology hits at 34+.07*7350=548.5. Dividing into 30,500 “Big Bang” hits gives a ratio of 56. I am open-minded about ways to make that calculation more scientific. I am closed-minded about fiery declarations from either side that plasma cosmology is or isn’t significant enough to be on Wikipedia, without any objective measure of plasma cosmology’s relative popularity. You guys are scientists, right? Which sounds more scientific, Choice A: “The Magellanic Clouds are not galaxies.” “Yes they are.” “No they aren’t.” “YES THEY ARE!”? Or Choice B: estimate the size?

Does the Big Bang article give enough recognition to a 56 to 1 minority? Compare it to how Boolean logic treats intuitionism. Google Scholar gives 342,000 hits for “Boolean”, 2780 hits for “intuitionsm” and 1770 hits for “intuitionist” (although intuitionist sometimes means something else.) But if I simply divide 342,000/(2780+1770) I get 75. Even 75 is more than 56, intuitionism is more than logic, the Big Bang article is longer than Boolean logic, and there are some phrases like “in any Boolean operation”. But even so, the Boolean article doesn’t really even hint at other logics. The Big Bang article links directly to non-standard cosmology, and includes three supporting sentences before debunking them. Why isn’t that enough? Please get a scientific consensus first, and then Wikipedia can report plasma cosmology to the public as comparable to Big Bang theory. Wikipedia is too democratic to pick scientific winners and losers by itself.

The plasma-ists say counting papers is a skewed statistic because plasma articles don’t survive peer review, and apparent Big Bangists are often closet plasma cosmologists. Inefficiency in any tax-supported project fits my preconceptions (see Milton Friedman) but I see no reason to assume that the bias favors the Big Bang. Cosmologically significant electric fields are interesting and fun to think about. The thought attracts scientists for the same reason most people study science fiction more than science. Besides, it’s easier to look important by challenging science wholesale than by contributing constructively, as Pjacobi pointed out at Time Cube, or as I encountered in simpler form at Talk:Big Bang#this article is highly unscientific or at Talk:Mathematical analysis#Mathematical/Real Analysis. If we allow plasma-ists to circumvent WP:NPOV by assuming their opponents secretly agree with them, then any POV pusher can say the same and we can pitch the NPOV policy out the window. So if plasma-ists want me to take their word for it that Big Bangists are closet plasma-ists, they will need to maintain a very high level of credibility when discussing things I have experience with.

They haven’t. I have read several times that Big Bangists (presumably excluding the anonymous Joke137) are only protecting their jobs. Anybody who understands that much doesn’t need me to explain that small changes in plasma funding will affect a plasma cosmology career 56 times more than a Big Bang career. Although Joshuaschroeder’s youthful venom (like my middle-aged venom) is debatable, I have explained it can’t possibly be vandalism as defined by Wikipedia:Vandalism#What vandalism is not, but that accusation has been repeated without addressing my objection. Similarly, harsh criticism of editing behavior isn’t defined as a personal attack. The simplest credibility issue is at plasma cosmology, where the plasma-ists keep reverting my undisputed proofreading along with the Big Bangism, even though I pointed out a version they could revert to instead, that matched their own plasma-ist text (at that time) except for incorporating my proofreading. If we can’t agree on anything else, can we start by agreeing on how to spell “typically”? Art LaPella

Thankyou Art - I stepped back from all this when it started getting really bizarre a couple of weeks ago. Alfven and Peratt have tended to use the term "plasma universe" when talking about plasma cosmology. This quite simple point should perhaps go somewhere in the PC page. I've run out of time now, but I wonder if that helps in numbers? I'm staying out of any discussion of conspiracy, whether in funding, publishing or otherwise, due to lack of experience/interest. The point is that there are anomalies in astrophysics at the moment, and whether you support Big Bang, Plasma models or giant turtles, this fact persists. Coverage in an NPOV article should at least describe the nature of these discrepancies - even call them "current areas of research." Jon 08:24, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Much better. I similarly Googled the phrase "plasma universe" excluding the word cosmology (which should exclude my two previous categories) and got 110 hits. That makes 658.5 plasma cosmology hits and a ratio of 46.

I put my diatribe on this page because I didn't have a solution for plasma cosmology other than spelling, which has been resolved. Also, two participants said they watched this page but not the others. Other participants may be in that situation also, because "Big Bang" is a more well-known phrase and it's two clicks away from the main page. Whatever.

22% of the article (excluding references) is already devoted to "Features, issues and problems" including its 7 subheadings, so I would wonder if NPOV would be served by making it bigger. But I don't know, so I wouldn't be the first to object to expanding that section, assuming such an edit didn't wave the flag of plasma cosmology. Art LaPella 23:53, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Who created the Big Bang?

05:21, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

What created the "BIG BANG"?

We don't know, but at least we have reproducible evidence for our opinions. Art LaPella 16:31, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Maybe God did... but then who created God? ;) —HorsePunchKid→龜 2005-12-01 20:35:37Z

I think you're looking for the cosmogony page.Jok2000 20:39, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Big Bang criticism page

The Big Bang as a subject is quite long and involved. Since the main purpose of an article is to describe the subject, rather than discussing the subject at length, it would seem reasonable to create a "Big Bang criticisms" page, with at least one reference to it. Likewise, that page would not be a discussion, nor contain criticisms of the criticism; its object is to present the arguments. Surely that would satisify all concerned? --Iantresman 20:16, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

I can't speak for anyone else, but it would certainly satisfy me! I've seen many instances where that's been done. Just as an example, I saw recently the John Kerry article has a separate link to John Kerry military service controversy. Granted, the main John Kerry article is heavily vandalised to begin with, but at least this moves a good portion of the edit wars off to a separate page. I think the effect would be even more noticeable and beneficial here. —HorsePunchKid→龜 2005-12-01 20:34:38Z

I searched for "Opposition to" and came up with Popular opposition to the 2003 Iraq War, Opposition to Fidel Castro, Opposition to US foreign policy, Opposition to cults and new religious movements, Opposition to US involvement in the Vietnam War, Opposition to the Charest government, and Opposition to Opus Dei. Each article "contain[s] criticisms of the criticism", though each was almost completely about the criticism (opposition) itself. So I don't think we could promise no criticism of the criticism at all, even if we wanted to. Art LaPella 03:15, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

If you accept criticism in a page on "Big Bang criticisms", then it would be fair to also include criticisms throughout the article page on the Big Bang itself? I don't think that either side would want that.

It would make better sense to address criticism to a page on "Big Bang criticisms" on the Big Bang page, and vice versa. In that way the integrity of each page is maintained.

I don't think that criticisms to the Big Bang automatically imply opposition to it. I would think that supporters of any theory should be aware of potential criticisms of their own subject. If they don't know, or are unwilling to mention them, they don't deserve to be write about the subject. --Iantresman 16:04, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

I thought what nobody seems to want any more, is more criticism in addition to Big Bang#Features, issues and problems, with its 7 subheadings. And if criticism isn't opposition, then substitute Criticisms of communism, Criticism of government response to Hurricane Katrina, Criticism of software engineering, Criticism of Hinduism, Criticism of Religion.... Art LaPella 03:08, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

There are two issues here:

1. Anomalies with the big bang, such as the multipole alignment and anomaly with BBN mentioned by Lerner. I think these are technical issues with the theory, and few people in the community have suggested that they are fundamental problems with the big bang theory (as the theory that the universe is expanding from a hot, dense state). These are generally technical, and should go on the topical sub-pages, big bang nucleosynthesis, cosmic microwave background, baryogenesis, Hubble law etc... I would be willing to write these sections if you think it would help. If the anomaly is substantial enough to have generated a lot of interest, then it should probably go on the main page too, but this is a matter for discussion in individual cases (we don't seem to have managed much of that in the discussion above). I don't see any advantage to creating a clearinghouse for people discontented with the big bang. It doesn't seem neutral, and it eliminates important context.
2. There is a long history of scientific, religious and philosophical criticism of the big bang. I think this is the subject that properly belongs on a Criticisms of the Big Bang page. And I think avoiding "criticisms of criticisms" counts as a POV fork. But including these super-technical issues there, I think, robs them of important context. If you want to make this page, I think you should first do it in a sandbox and ask for the input of people here before putting it in article space, where it could be the subject of immediate contention.

Incidentally, if things ever settle down, I would like to re-write large-scale structure of the cosmos and timeline of the Big Bang, but right now I'm too depressed by these edit wars. –Joke137 17:15, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

This is a difficult issue. Generally speaking, POV forks are bad and against Wikipedia's NPOV policy. Having one article "pro" and a article "contra" is just the opposite of WP:NPOV. Even a pro and con discussion in one article is considered a substandard implementation of NPOV.

There are exceptions for good and for bad reasons. The bad reason is usually exhaustion of editors trying to implement NPOV policy and/or a "deal" between pro-POV and con-POV editors to split. See Prem Rawat and Criticism of Prem Rawat as an archetypical example. Now for the good reason:

• If the objections are very unorthodox view (read Time Cube) or an opionion hold only a tiny minoritry of field experts (read Duesberg hypothesis), it usually may be correct to give them no or only passing mention in the main article. In most cases they also don't deserve a criticism article, but they may have notability, for either (a) high visibility in the mass media, (b) being promoted in one part of the world, or (c) having once been the consensus view or at least wider acceptance.

Having said all this, I would advise against a split.

Pjacobi 17:33, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

I would prefer not to have a split, too, but given the choice between revert warriors driving away extraordinarly valuable editors like Joke137 and Joshuaschroeder, I have to side with forking. Let the Big Bang page describe the Big Bang theory as the majority of cosmologists currently understands it. A section on criticisms with a {{seemain}} would be included, and specific criticisms can be addressed either there or on the individual related pages (e.g. BBN) as Joke137 suggests. —HorsePunchKid→龜 2005-12-03 04:10:51Z

What do we need a split for? Please explain to me how this information (that people criticize the Big Bang) isn't already covered on the Big Bang page and the nonstandard cosmologies pages? --ScienceApologist 14:56, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

If such information was already covered, then no-one would feel a need to comment or criticise. I don't see a criticism of the Big Bang as a fork. I don't see it as an "opposition page". I see it as a criticism, as the subject has generated a considerable amount of text from people and books [1] [2]. In my opinion, that certain people feel that the information is already covered, shows either denial, lack of understanding, Point of View pushing, or all three. --Iantresman 18:32, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

What do we need a split for? "This page is 42 kilobytes long. This may be longer than is preferable; see article size. JDR

Redshift RfC

User:Iantresman wants to see the mechanisms for redshift include such things as tired light, scattering, and resonance effects. Please comment here Talk:Redshift. --ScienceApologist 14:56, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

I want to see it acknowledged that scientists in peer-reviewed journals, use the term redshift in a slightly different form to that currently described. I do not expect equality of material for minority usage, but I expect an article to conform to a Neutral point of view: "... representing all majority and significant-minority views fairly and without bias"... "NPOV is "absolute and non-negotiable" --Iantresman 18:36, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Big Bang created time, space, matter and energy - PROBLEM

This problem isn't directly related to Wikipedia's article on the Big Bang, but was based on one I had read on another medium.

Essentially, I read that the Big Bang CREATED time, space, matter and energy. However, I am confused about this statement.

My problem is this:- How could the Big Bang "happen" if time didn't exist already? If time (correctively spacetime) doesn't exist then nothing can happen.

Can you see what I'm trying to dig at?

Sulligogs 22:38, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

"Confirmation" vs "consistent evidence"

The last sentence in the introduction reads:

• The CMB was discovered in the 1960s and served as a confirmation of the Big Bang theory...

Surely the discovery is evidence that is consistent with the theory, and is NOT a confirmation? Or perhaps "served as a confirmation" (which is an absolute) should be changed to "taken as a confirmation", which is not the same thing? --Iantresman 23:20, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, scientific theories can never be confirmed in the sense that you mean. How about "...1960s and validated the Big Bang theory..." –Joke 16:28, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

The sense that I read from the article is an absolute. "Served as confirmation..." and the suggested "validated..." both read as such. It might be conclusive, and the Big Bang might be as good as proven, but the CMB by itself does not "served as a confirmation". I'd be happy with "adds further support for", or "is consistent with"? --Iantresman 17:09, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

As a side note, I suggest "further validated", since it shows how it helped to support it yet is not an absolute (I hope), any comments? Ian¹³ 19:02, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm going to change it "further validated" since I think that's absolutely what it does. Iantresman is right in that "served as a confirmation" is probably too strong a phrase since it did effectively eliminate the alternate theory but also introduced a few unanswered questions when scrutinized by the WMAP. By no means major problems, I don't think the Big Bang is in the business of being 'confirmed'. We can discuss these findings further if there are objections.Duke nemmerle 12:10, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Rather tangentially related, but an entertaining read: Frank Wilczek, Enlightenment, Knowledge, Ignorance, Temptation, hep-ph/0512187. As a starting point of discussing the validity and usefullness of landscapology (a.k.k Anthropic principle reloaded); Wilczek gives three examples of the high precison agreeemnt between theory and measurement, one being the CMB fluctuation spectrum (the other two are hadron masses from lattice QCD and electroweak scattering theory). --Pjacobi 18:58, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Features, issues and problems

The second sentence in this paragraph says "Other issues, such as the cuspy halo problem and the dwarf galaxy problem of cold dark matter, are not considered to be fatal...".

If "cuspy halos", "dwarf galaxies", and "cold dark matter" are important enough to mention on the section's introduction, shouldn't here be a short sub-section on each issue. And if "cold dark matter" is the same as "dark matter", then shouldn't his sub-section be renamed? --Iantresman 18:33, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Cold dark matter is a kind of dark matter. Right now the Lambda-CDM model favors cold dark matter as the major component. However, the general arguments for dark matter do not specify whether it is cold or hot. Therefore it is best to leave it as the more general "dark matter".

The problems associated with cold dark matter are model-dependent. That is, they are derived from theoretical n-body simulations rather than from observations. It is a judgement call, but there is some way which you can lump the cuspy halo problem (which may actually be solved now) and the dwarf galaxy problem as features, issues, and problems associated with cold dark matter as opposed to the Big Bang -- one level of specificity removed.

--ScienceApologist 21:16, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Was the big bang really the very beginning ?

Is there any empirical evidence that the big bang was the very beginning of the universe before which there was nothing, as often claimed by big bang theory adherents? It seems neither Friedman nor Lemaitre believed it was, the latter reportedly believing there was previously a primeval atom for eternity. Who first introduced the idea into the big bang theory that it was the very origin or 'creation' of the universe, rather than merely the origin of its current expansion, thereby legitimating talk about the very beginning of the explosion as 'the first few seconds of the universe' ? Certainly Hoyle's 1950 BBC Radio broadcast presumed what he dubbed 'the big bang theory' claimed the bang was the beginning of the universe, whereas earlier on it seems to have been treated as just an expanding universe theory as opposed to also being a theory about the very beginning of the universe. --80.6.94.131 18:52, 26 January 2006 (UTC)A.Bellamy

It seems to me that such a thing could be considered to be beyond the scope of the theory or science in general. Since, if the big bang theory is accurate, before the big bang, the universe was a singularity; spacetime did not exist in the current sense before that. For all intents and purposes, there really wasn't a before in any very meaningful sense. More direct to the question in the heading, "don't know" and probably "can't know". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.153.117.118 (talk • contribs) on 20:01, 19 February 2006.

Dear 66.153.117.118

Thanks for this response to my first question. So do you claim Lemaitre just did not understand relativity physics or the Big Bang Theory (BBT)in positing the universe consisted of some kind of atom before it exploded in the big bang ? And do you also claim that eternal oscillatory universe models that posit an endless 'Big Bang - Big Crunch' series BEFORE the last big bang (See Section 7), and which therefore deny the Big Bang theory that the universe began with the big bang of 13.7 billion years ago, are ruled out as meaningless or unknowable or refuted by general relativity ?

If you are right that the origin of the universe is scientifically unknowable, and such as the Wikipedia article and Simon Singh's book 'Big Bang' are also both right that the contemporary BBT claims the big bang was the origin of the universe, then it follows that the theory is itself partly based on a non-empirical extra-scientific faith that the universe had a beginning or creation and that the big bang was it, contrary to Wikipedia's and Singh's claims that is an empirical scientific theory. In that case the Wikipedia account and many others need rewriting so as not to confuse the logically minded rational reader trying to learn about modern physics and cosmology and to make it clear that this component of the theory is an extra-scientific faith, contrary to the current Section 8 of the Wikipedia article that claims the theory is scientific, or else that this is not a component of the theory, but rather only an extra-scientific interpretation of it to be lumped together with the other religious interpretations of Section 8.

My first question raises the issue of what empirical evidence can possibly justify such locutions as 'the age of the universe is 13.7 billion years' just because this is thought to be when its current expansion began, and such as events within a few seconds after the big bang being referred to as 'in the first few seconds of the universe', such as publicly used by scientists such as the current Astronomer Royal Sir Martin Rees, whose proper business is presumably astronomical observation and determining what hypotheses are supported by observation.

But my question was prompted by what seems to be the radical ambivalence and logical confusion in the Wikipedia article and in other characterisations of the Big Bang Theory such as Singh's bestselling 2004 book 'Big Bang' cited in the Wikipedia references, and possibly even amongst cosmologists themselves, about whether it specifically claims the Big Bang was the origin of the universe or not, in addition to claiming the universe is currently expanding after an explosion some time ago. This is surely an important issue about which clarity is important both for popular science education and also for religious education.

So perhaps the more basic question that should be raised is 'Does the Big Bang Theory claim the big bang was the origin of the universe or not ?', with the auxiliary question that if it does, as Wikipedia tends to claim, what is its observational evidence for this, if any, or is it an untested hypothesis ?

The current Wikipedia article's apparent ambivalence and confusion over this core issue is surely illustrated by the following problems for the logically minded reader on its introductory first page:

• At the article's very outset, whereas the first sentence only claims "the universe EMERGED from an enormously dense and hot state about 13.7 billion years ago", the text of the accompanying diagram makes the far stronger claim that "the universe ORIGINATED in an extremely dense and hot state", and which it labels "singularity" without explaining what a 'singularity' is.

• The third sentence claims "Extrapolated into the past, [the Hubble] observations show that the universe has expanded from a PRIMEVAL state, in which all matter and energy in the universe was at an immense temperature and density." But what observations can possibly show this state was PRIMEVAL, meaning 'of the first age of the world', as opposed to having occurred, for example, at the equivalent of the last stroke of midnight in the history of the universe ?

• The fourth sentence claims "Physicists do not widely agree on what happened BEFORE THIS [primeval/original dense and hot state ?], although general relativity predicts a gravitational singularity." But this apparently conflicts with the Wikipedia claim that the Big Bang Theory (BBT) has been well established and widely accepted at least since 1965. This seems unlikely if its cardinal component is that BEFORE THIS the bang was the origin of the universe, as Wikipedia seems to claim, but on the other hand physicists do widely disagree on what happened before the dense and hot state, as Wikipedia also claims. Moreover, it is unclear whether the last clause of this Wikipedia sentence is also implicitly claiming as some do that general relativity theory itself implies a creation because the gravitational singularity it allegedly predicts is equated with such, which raises the question of why neither Einstein, nor even Friedmann and Lemaitre who both set the cosmological constant to zero, thought GR itself implied a creation.

• In the second paragraph on the one hand the term 'Big Bang' is said to refer to when the observed EXPANSION of the universe began, without claiming this was also the beginning of the universe. But on the other hand this same term is then said "in a more general sense to refer to the prevailing cosmological paradigm explaining THE ORIGIN AND expansion of the universe, as well as...". This again illustrates Wikipedia's ambivalence about whether the beginning of the current expansion of the universe was also the beginning of the universe, for nowhere does the following article provide any explanation whatever of the origin of the universe when its origin is equated with the Big Bang. And in its Section 8 on 'Philosophical and religious interpretations' the Wikipedia article even claims "science cannot possibly show a first cause" and that explanations of the cause of the Big Bang itself are "extra-scientific". This implies either that the prevailing Big Bang cosmological paradigm is extra-scientific if Wikipedia is right in claiming that it explains the origin of the universe or else that Wikipedia is wrong in claiming it does so. Nor to the best of my knowledge did Lemaitre even say why the previously eternal massive atom exploded, to explain the origin of the current expansion of a far more ancient atomic universe.

• There are many other such anomalies beyond the first page, but most notably Section 8 claims BBT does not conflict with Buddhism's denial of any creation "since there are ways to conceive an eternal universe within the paradigm." But apart from such questions as how a paradigm that claims the universe is only 13.7 billion years old is also compatible with claiming an eternal universe, Singh's Big Bang cited in the Wikipedia reference repeatedly characterises the Big Bang Theory as the twofold doctrine that the universe is not eternal and is expanding, which contradicts the Wikipedia claim that the paradigm can accomodate an eternal universe. Also the oscillating universe theory mentioned in Section 7 apparently posits an eternity of 'Big Bangs Big Crunches' before the last Big Bang, which thus contradicts the BBT claim that it was the origin of the universe.

Given this apparent confusion, I propose the various Wikipedia claims that the Big Bang Theory claims the Big Bang was the origin of the universe be edited out until they can be substantiated. I suggest it should also cite the observational evidence for this hypothesis, if any, and explain when and why it first became part of the BBT, noting that neither its originators Friedmann and Lemaitre nor such as Sir James Jeans in his 1930 bestseller 'The Mysterious Universe', which accepted the expanding universe theory, claimed the beginning of the expansion was also the origin of the universe. When did the Big Bang cosmology first become a cosmogony as well, and why ?

--80.6.94.131 19:10, 28 February 2006 (UTC)A.Bellamy

I think your prose above could have been made more succinct: "Does the Big Bang Theory claim the big bang was the origin of the universe or not?" is your question. It depends on what you mean by "origin". If you mean "from whence the present universe came" then yes, it does claim that the big bang is the origin. If you mean "ultimate source" then, no, it does not claim such a thing. This distinction is well-made in all relevant articles on the subject. --ScienceApologist 19:14, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

While we're on unspoken assumptions about the unknown, ScienceApologist's comment applies only to the known universe. Art LaPella 20:03, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Dear ScienceApologist

Beginning at the Beguine: the wrong kind of origin ?

Thanks for this most amusing Pythonesque Joadian response and the literary criticism to boot. So when Wikipedia and others claim the Big Bang was 'the origin of the universe', those people influenced by English language common parlance and such as the Popular Oxford Dictionary who rashly conclude 'origin' means it was the beginning or starting point of the universe obviously have the WRONG kind of origin in mind, namely what you would call the 'ultimate origin'. Good to hear that the BBT does not claim the universe originated in its origin ! But given that the Wikipedia article does not currently make this apparently vital new distinction between ultimate and non-ultimate origins, should people also conclude from your claim that all relevant articles do make this distinction that it is therefore not a relevant article on the subject, in addition to apparently being crucially confused on such a vital issue?

The BBT is ill-defined

But beyond such amusing Pythonesque apologetics for such apparently pseudo-scientific snake-oil claims that the Big Bang was the beginning of the universe and its moment of creation, presumably made to try and maximise research funding, or even claims that General Relativity itself implies a moment of creation (albeit possibly not the ultimate creation), sometimes eked out by logically confused techno-talk of 'singularities' and 'Minkowskian space-time', there is an underlying more serious issue. It is that the BBT is so ill-defined in the expository literature that it is exceedingly difficult or impossible to identify what it is and what its conflicting and competing cosmologies and their comparative merits are. For example, one best-seller cited by Wikipedia repeatedly distinguishes the BBT as the theory that the universe is expanding and is not eternal, and the alleged competing Steady State Theory (SST) as the theory that the universe is expanding but also eternal. But Wikipedia claims the Big Bang 'paradigm' can accommodate an uncreated eternal universe (See Section 8), such as posited by Buddhism.

The Wikipedia article itself would certainly benefit from some better logical differentiation of the BBT from the SST. In this connection it is notable that whereas Wikipedia claims the cosmological homogeneity principle is one of the three pillars of the BBT (Section 3), Singh's Big Bang claims it was predicted by the SST but that the BBT predicts it is false because of the uneven distribution of baby galaxies which would only appear at the furthest distances, and which is said to be confirmed by observation (See pp347, 444-5), contrary to the cosmological principle and SST. It is unfortunate that efforts to learn about science can apparently result in learning more about illogical confusion amongst science presenters.

So what are the basic distinguishing principles of the BBT, if any, that distinguish it from all other theories that maintain the universe is currently expanding, including the SST and the oscillating universe theory ? What is the BBT beyond the theory that the universe is currently expanding from a previous highly dense hot state ? And what, if anything, could possibly refute it ? These seem to be recondite questions for those who deny that the BBT claims that the bang was the beginning of the universe, for popular accounts of it can easily create the suspicion that the specificity of the BBT is based on nothing much more than a scientifically unsustainable hype that the bang was the beginning.

Conclusion

The progressive upshot for Wikipedia of the view that the BBT does not claim the bang was the beginning is that all the Wikipedia article claims and locutions that imply it was, such as that it was the origin of the universe, that the universe is 13.7 billion years old, references to soon after the bang as 'the EARLY universe' etc, must surely be removed so as not to prejudice the reader in favour of an extra-scientific hypothesis and empirically unfounded interpretations like that of the 24 April 1992 Independent front page headline 'How the Universe Began' did. A.Bellamy 2 March 2006

This is tiresome, and you've answered your own question. The big bang is the theory that the universe has emerged from a hot dense state sometime in the past, neither more nor less. It does not guess at what came before that. The oscillating universe, cosmic inflation etc postulate additional history for the universe, before the hot dense state. I will not bother to correct your mistaken understanding of general relativity and the cosmological principle, for the simple reason that this discussion has little to do with what to do with the Wikipedia article. –Joke 19:37, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I ought to explain the reason for my response. Frequently, people come on to this talk page and tell many of the regular editors of the big bang article that their theory is phisophically misguided, unfalsifiable, Ptolemaic, or already falsified. I can assure you that it is none of these things. The discussion on this page ought to be confined to specific ways to improve the article, because we have frequently had general conversations such as these before, they almost never improve the article, they consume much time, they are not the purpose of this talk page, and they quickly grow wearisome. So I encourage you to comment succinctly on specific things you think are wrong with the article and ways in which these problems could be resolved. –Joke 19:45, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't have the time nor the inclination to analyze such a rambling, incoherent diatribe. All I can gather is that you want any reference to points in time before now to only refer to the present and not that which proceeded it, nor do you want anyone to establish a linguistic coordinate system in time with an origin that lies anywhere but right now. This is an unreasonable request. Terms such as "early universe", "origin", etc. have colloquial and technical uses that are easily clarified by context. Expansion of the universe implies a singularity with extrapolation. A singularity is a natural place to place an origin for a coordinate system. Events that happened closer on time-like curves to the origin are earlier than events that happened farther. No denotation issues are evident at all. --ScienceApologist 20:01, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

A.Bellamy replies to Joke's mistaken criticisms

Dear Joke, Thanks for your above criticisms of 2 March. But after due consideration I do hope you will agree with me that they are misplaced and apparently also editorially uninformed. Most especially their main charge that my previous 3 contributions are purely general discussions not concerned with practically improving specific defects of the Wikipedia article is patently false and especially annoying given the detailed practical efforts I had previously made to improve the article, but which were rejected. To recap the background contexts this mistaken criticism crucially ignored:

In the absence of any Wikipedia defence of its claims that the BBT maintains that the big bang was the origin and beginning of the universe in response to my first query about them on 26 January, in my second contribution of 28 February I therefore specifically proposed that unless such claims could be substantiated, they be edited out [see its concluding paragraph above]. That same discussion also identified 4 such specific examples of this problem on the very first page of the article plus one other of its many more examples. But most practically of all, I then did 4 edits on the first page to improve it by removing its unsustainable origin claims. BUT AFTER INITIAL ACCEPTANCE, 3 OF THESE WERE SUBSEQUENTLY REJECTED AND THE ORIGINALS RESTORED. However, after ScienceApologist effectively admitted on 28 Feb that the BBT did not claim the big bang was the origin of the universe [see above], I then edited the article throughout to remove its various claims to the contrary, as I had already proposed. BUT AFTER INITIAL ACCEPTANCE, EXCEPT FOR JUST ONE, THESE DOZEN OR SO FURTHER IMPROVING EDITS WERE ALSO ALL SUBSEQUENTLY REJECTED AND REPLACED BY THE ORIGINALS. This was most wearisome and tiresome, and it seemed Wikipedia was committed to misrepresenting the BBT as a theory of the beginning of the universe and to blocking attempts to edit out all such misrepresentations. In my responding contribution of 2 March, again I specifically proposed the following improving editing: "all the Wikipedia article claims and locutions that imply it was [the beginning of the universe], such as that it was the origin of the universe, that the universe is 13.7 billion years old, references to soon after the bang as 'the EARLY universe' etc, must surely be removed so as not to prejudice the reader in favour of an extra-scientific hypothesis and empirically unfounded religious interpretation..." But whilst in response on 2 March Joke affirmed the position that the BBT does not claim the bang was the beginning, still no such consequently appropriate editing of the article has been carried out to date. But since I have been encouraged to make specific proposals, whilst I previously avoided cluttering up the discussion page with the tedia of detailed editing proposals instead of just implementing them, I now do so below. They propose 16 edits, 15 of which are required to eliminate all suggestions that the BBT claims the bang was the beginning of the universe. I commend their implementation.

But first of all I provide for the editors' possible edification some most pertinent quotations concerning misconceptions and misrepresentations of the BBT from the Wikipedia referenced web article 'Evidence for the Big Bang' by Feuerbacher & Scranton, posted on 25 January 2006, notably the day before I first queried the Wikipedia article's claim that the BBT claims the bang was the beginning.

From Feuerbacher & Scranton @ [3]

p2 "Contrary to the common perception, BBT is not a theory about the ORIGIN of the universe. Rather it describes the development of the universe over time.", and contrary to the current Wikipedia paragraph 2 claim that it explains "THE ORIGIN AND expansion of the universe".

p4 "BBT does not imply that the universe was ever point like.", contrary to the Wikipedia diagram with its point-like 'singularity' and p489 of Singh's misleadingly titled 'Big Bang: the origin of the universe':"As we run the clock backwards...it seems that all matter and energy was concentrated at one point,..."

p4 P.J.E. Peebles 2001 Scientific American: "That the universe is EXPANDING and cooling is the essence of the big bang theory. You will notice I have said nothing about an explosion - the big bang theory describes how our universe is evolving, not how it began.", contrary to Joke's 2 March claim: "The big bang is the theory that the universe has emerged from a hot dense state sometime in the past, NEITHER MORE nor less." and the Wikipedia article's first sentence that notably omits any mention of expansion.

Yes, you don't have to be Peebles to know that the big bang implies expansion. I should have said "expanded" instead of "emerged", but expansion is problematic, because the expansion is in the sense of a homogeneous expansion of space itself, rather than an explosion from a point, as you mention. This is discussed in the introductory paragraph. –Joke 20:05, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

p4 Kippenhahn: "There is also the widespread mistaken belief that, according to Hubble's law, the Big Bang began at one certain point in space. ...No, Hubble's law only says that matter was more dense everywhere at an earlier time, and that it thins out over time because everything flows away from each other."

p5 "The simplest description of the theory would be something like "In the distant past, the universe was very dense and hot; since then it has expanded, becoming less dense and cooler"." Here "expanded" means "space itself is becoming larger".

[My caps for emphasis.]

16 PROPOSED EDITS OF THE WIKIPEDIA BIG BANG ARTICLE AS OF 10 MARCH 2006

Except for the very first of them, the purpose of these 16 proposed edits of the current article is to prune out all its implications that the big bang was the beginning or origin of the universe according to the Big Bang Theory. Each proposed edit locates the claimed defective passage by its 'Contents' part numbers as listed on the first page of the article under 'Contents', then by the number of its paragraph within that part, and also the paragraph sentence number where appropriate, so <PART 1 Para4.S3> identifies the third Sentence of Paragraph 4 of Part 1. Then the passage itself is also quoted, with its problematic words emphasised by capital letters, the problem is specified, and an improving replacement is then proposed in single quotes.

As a clarifying convention for the use of Hoyle's arguably unfortunate and misleading moniker 'Big Bang', I suggest 'the big bang' and 'the bang' should simply mean 'the beginning of the current expansion of the universe'.

INTRODUCTION

• Para 1: The very first sentence "In physical cosmology, the Big Bang is the scientific theory that the universe EMERGED FROM an enormously dense and hot state about 13.7 billion years ago." crucially omits the most important aspect of the theory, namely that it claims the universe has radically EXPANDED since then, and instead creates the impression it just rarified and cooled and came out of a phase it passed through of being much hotter and denser, rather like the earth has emerged from ice ages it has entered or a train emerges from a tunnel it has entered. I suggest it be replaced by the following alternative introductory sentence:

'In physical cosmology, the Big Bang Theory says that the universe has been expanding and cooling down from an enormously dense and hot state it was in about 13.7 billion years ago.'

Did you bother to go on to the second sentence? –Joke 20:05, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

• The Diagram's Caption: The phrase "the universe ORIGINATED IN an extremely dense and hot state" should at least be replaced by '...universe EMERGED FROM an...' to at least bring it in line with 'emerged from' in the article's first sentence [This edit has now already been accepted.], but more ideally it should be replaced by

'the universe EXPANDED AND COOLED DOWN FROM an extremely dense and hot state...' to agree with the above proposed edit of the article's first sentence if it is accepted.

Emerged from is fine in this context. –Joke 20:05, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

[N.B. The next three sentences after the first sentence are surely unnacceptable as an encyclopedia's introduction to the theory for laypeople and school pupils, because they immediately blind them with wholly unexplained 20th century science and jargon, such as 'Hubble's law', 'the cosmological principle', 'Friedmann-Lemaitre model of general relativity' and 'gravitational singularity'. The same also applies to the next two paragraphs, and so I suggest a much more lay-friendly rewrite of this whole three paragraph introductory page should be considered. It should also get rid of the second paragraph's socio-linguistic claim of ambiguous usage of the term 'Big Bang' to refer to both an event and also to a theory, because this adds nothing but potential confusion and length to the exposition of the theory. And following Peebles, instead it should perhaps make it clear that, paradoxically, the BBT does not claim there was a big bang, as Hoyle's moniker unfortunately implies, nor even a silent explosion.]

Yes, I agree. They are a less than perfect product of balancing the need for technical accuracy with clarity. –Joke 20:05, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

• Para 1, Sentence 3: Delete PRIMEVAL from "...the universe has expanded from a PRIMEVAL state in which all matter and energy was at an immense temperature and density." because 'PRIMEVAL' means 'of the first age of the world' and so begs the question of whether it was such, rather than a very late or even infinitely late state of the world, for example. [NB My own editing this out has now already been accepted, apparently.]

Primeval, primordial and origin are completely standard usage in the big bang literature, misleading or not. –Joke 20:05, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

• Para 2: Remove "origin and" from

"the prevailing cosmological paradigm explaining the ORIGIN AND expansion of the universe,...", to be replaced by 'the prevailing cosmological paradigm explaining the expansion of the universe,...' because the BBT does not provide any explanation of the origin of the universe whatever, but only of its evolution from the start of its current expansion.

The expansion of the universe is explained by general relativity. The big bang explains the origin of the structures in the universe (inflationary perturbations undergoing gravitational growth), light elements (BBN), etc, etc. It does not provide a first cause, however. –Joke 20:05, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

• Para 2: Remove "primordial" from "...as well as the composition of PRIMORDIAL matter through nucleosynthesis as predicted..." because 'PRIMORDIAL' means 'existing at or from the beginning', and so it wrongly and confusingly dates the new lighter nuclear matter such as helium nuclei formed later in nucleosynthesis out of the fusion of prior free particles as itself having existed from the very beginning, rather than only having come into existence AFTER the beginning and been formed out of earlier matter that existed BEFORE nucleosynthesis. Nor is it even known whether these earlier pre-nuclear particles were primordial or not, if it is unknown when the beginning of the universe was, nor also even whether there was any matter whatever at the beginning.

So replace "...as well as the composition of PRIMORDIAL matter through nucleosynthesis as predicted..." by 'as well as the FORMATION OF THE NUCLEI OF LIGHTER ATOMIC matter by nucleosynthesis as predicted...', or more simply by 'as well as the FORMATION OF LIGHTER NUCLEAR matter by nucleosynthesis as predicted...'.

PART 1 History

• Para 4.S3: Remove "origin and" from "the best theory of the ORIGIN AND evolution of the cosmos" to become 'the best theory of the evolution of the cosmos', because it is not a theory of the origin of the cosmos.

PART 2 Overview

• Para 1: The claim "...the universe has a calculated age of 13.7 +- 0.2 billion years" unjustifiably presumes 'the bang' was the beginning of the universe in time, so suggest its replacement by the more neutral

'the big bang happened 13.7 +- 0.2 billion years ago' or by 'the universe has been expanding for 13.7 +- 0.2 billion years'.

No. It is almost always referred to as the age of the universe in the literature, and Wikipedia does not have cause to try to change the prevailing terminology. According to general relativity, this really is the age of the universe. Of course, GR isn't a complete theory and something had to come before, but it is still absolutely standard usage. –Joke 20:05, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

• Para 2: "The EARLY universe was filled..." begs the question of whether the bang was the beginning of the universe rather than a much later or even infinitely later stage, for example, so suggest instead the more neutral

'After the big bang at first the universe was filled...' or 'At first the expanding universe was filled...' or even by 'The early expanding universe was filled...'

Live with it. The Early Universe is the title of probably the most well known cosmology textbook (Kolb and Turner) and is standard usage despite your hobby horse. –Joke 20:05, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

• Para 6.S2: "Mysteries appear...closer to the BEGINNING,..." again begs the question of whether the bang was the beginning, so suggest instead the more neutral 'closer to the BANG' or

'closer to the beginning of the current expansion,...'.

• Para 6.S3: "There is no compelling physical model for the FIRST 10(-33) seconds OF THE UNIVERSE, before the phase transition..."

should be replaced by '...for the first 10(-33) seconds of THE EXPANSION OF the universe, before...'

I don't see the argument for changing this. Of course these could be interpreted as unclear out of context, but earlier in the article these points are clarified. –Joke 20:05, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

PART 4.2 CMB radiation

• Para 1.S2: "Because the EARLY universe was in thermal equilibrium..." unjustifably presumes this period was early rather than late, so replace it by the more neutral

'Because the early EXPANDING universe was...' or by 'After the bang the universe was in thermal equilibrium for a time...'.

• Para 4: "Because the EARLY universe was in thermal equilibrium, the radiation from this time..."

should be replaced by the more neutral 'The radiation from the period of thermal equilibrium after the bang had a blackbody...' or by 'Because the early EXPANDING universe was...'

PART 4.3 Abundance of PRIMORDIAL elements

• This part's title "Abundance of PRIMORDIAL elements" should be replaced by 'Abundance of LIGHT elements', because 'primordial' means 'existing at or from the beginning', which begs the question of whether the bang was the beginning, and also of which elements, if any, were primordial.

• Para 2.S4: The phrase "for example, the YOUNG universe (i.e. before star formation, as determined by..."

again begs the question of whether the universe was indeed young rather than very old at that time, and so should be replaced by 'for example, the PRE-STELLAR universe, (as determined by...)' or by 'for example, the universe before star formation, (as determined by...)', and even better, "as DETERMINED by" should be replaced by 'as IDENTIFIED by', to become 'for example, the PRE-STELLAR universe, (as IDENTIFIED by studying matter essentially free of nucleosynthesis products)...'

See all of the above points. –Joke 20:05, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

PART 7 Speculative physics beyond the Big Bang

• Para 3.S2: "Little is known about the EARLIEST UNIVERSE, when inflation is hypothesised to have occurred." again begs the question of whether this was the earliest universe rather than even an infinitely old universe, for example, and so should be replaced by the more neutral

"Little is known about the very beginning of the Big Bang, when inflation is hypothesised to have occurred in its first split seconds." or by 'Little is known about the VERY EARLIEST EXPANSION OF THE UNIVERSE, when inflation is hypothesised to have occurred."

See all of the above points. –Joke 20:05, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

PART 8 Philosophical and religious interpretations

• Para 3: Re the first item in the list: "A number of Christian churches, the Roman Catholic Church in particular, have accepted the Big Bang as a possible description of THE ORIGIN of the universe,..."

As the article currently stands, it seems anomalous to classify the claim that some Christian churches "have accepted the Big Bang as a possible description of THE ORIGIN of the universe" to be an extra-scientific religious interpretation, whilst Wikipedia itself also currently claims it is "the best theory of THE ORIGIN and evolution of the cosmos". Even if all such origination claims are removed from the article, perhaps the above phrase should become 'have INTERPRETED the Big Bang as a possible description of the ULTIMATE origin of the universe', to employ ScienceApologist's arguably pleonastic verbal distinction between an origin and an ultimate origin.

--80.6.94.131 17:09, 10 March 2006 (UTC)A.Bellamy

See all of the above points. –Joke 20:05, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Early universe is a term well-used in cosmology and should not be removed because it is non-controversial. This also applies to "primordial", "young", "primeval", and "emerge". --ScienceApologist 15:50, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't know why you are so preoccupied with these alterations. All these terms, origin, early, young, primeval, primordial are used with the tacit understanding that nothing is known about what the visible universe was condensed into the space of, approximately, a cubic meter, and that the expansion may have reversed or something completely unknown could have happened at that time. Nonetheless, their use is utterly conventional, and as long as this point is made clear, there can be no ambiguity. –Joke 20:05, 13 March 2006 (UTC)