Talk:Big Bang

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

"IMPORTANT: This is not the place to discuss how you think the universe began, or to discuss whether or not the Big Bang model is correct. "

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

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

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

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

To be more precise... The BIG Bang-Bit Bang/Supermassive White Hole-Quantum Tunneling Umbilical Wormhole. 2600:1700:3DC4:8220:A5E3:90A0:220B:2DF (talk) 22:07, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

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

One way to picture the problem is to call it a language issue. We could talk of the big bang theory as describing the beginning of the "known" universe. Meaning by this the eras of the universes that we can start to describe with reliable models. But the wording "beginning of the known universe" is misleading as we don't know the first era described by the models to be the very first era of the universe altogether. We could name it the first era but only as "the first era in the timeline that we can predict and describe". Naming that first era "beginning" is questionable.

Scientifically, we can't definitively speak to the "Universe" (upper case), meaning the entirety of existence. Saying "known universe" (lower case) is redundant wording, as that is implicit. I don't see a need to hem and haw about speculative possibilities we don't know. If that still bothers you, we could always add a footnote. Praemonitus (talk) 13:10, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Georges Lemaitre proposed "Primeval Atom" in 1927

The opening paragraph should include... Georges Lemaitre proposed "primeval atom" in 1927. 2600:1700:3DC4:8220:A5E3:90A0:220B:2DF (talk) 22:03, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

The BIG Bang-Bit Bang/Supermassive White Hole-Quantum Tunneling Umbilical Wormhole

To be more precise... The BIG Bang-Bit Bang/Supermassive White Hole-Quantum Tunneling Umbilical Wormhole. 2600:1700:3DC4:8220:A5E3:90A0:220B:2DF (talk) 22:09, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Missing link

Hi,im a newbie & not at all familiar with making edits. Reading through this article from the beginning, I’ve noticed the term “space” is used early on. Presumably this could also be a hyperlink to an article within Wikipedia about “Space”? Jbjbees (talk) 00:21, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Jbjbees. This would probably fall under the MOS:OVERLINKing policy. I'm not sure there's much in the space article that would be helpful for the reader. –CWenger (^ • @) 16:26, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Missing: Bang Theory Proven Wrong. Please Update

Using pictures from James Web Telescope the universe is, proven to be, at least 26.7 billion years old, and not 13.7 as previously estimated.

They appropriately named a comedy show "The Big Bang Theory". 73.169.181.43 (talk) 20:20, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Sources are required EvergreenFir (talk) 20:40, 8 January 2025 (UTC)