Talk:Big Bang

Requested move 20 February 2025

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Withdrawn by proposer, no support (closed by non-admin page mover) Hameltion (talk | contribs) 02:04, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

---

Big Bang → Big Bang theory – The current title implies that Big Bang is an established factual event. That presents a false premise, because it is a theoretical concept only (as per Theory of relativity). A possible alternative could be Big Bang model, but I think theory is the more accurate definition. Spartathenian (talk) 22:46, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose Consider Evolution, Newton's laws, Quantum mechanics, General relativity etc. The anomaly is Theory of relativity. Johnjbarton (talk) 23:09, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

  Hi, John. The proposal is based on the much simpler concern of what Wikipedia says in its own voice. I wondered if WP should be saying Big Bang is fact, or should it say it is a theory? As it happens, I did actually consider WP's treatment of evolution and Newton before making the proposal. Evolution began as a theory that is now generally accepted because of strong empirical evidence—for example, DNA. As regards laws, there is a clear difference between a scientific law and a scientific theory, so there is no doubt that Gravity is a correct title, but Big Bang is not a law. I agree with you up to a point about the theory of relativity, but it has two distinct aspects based on, again, gravity. Thanks for your reply, though, because you've made good points. Spartathenian (talk) 10:45, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

  Over the last 15 years, the Big Bang model has moved to a place comparable to evolution. Multiple lines of evidence, high precision predictions, and competing models that fail dismally.

  You might take a look at

  • Feynman, Richard P. (1967). The Character of Physical Law: The 1964 Messenger Lectures. MIT Press. ISBN 0-262-56003-8.

  I don't think your claim that "there is a clear difference between a scientific law and a scientific theory" can be sourced. The acceptance of a model is a continuous, social process. Many 20th century philosophers of science (including Feynman) argue that no model needs to be "truth" because nature is not required to be understandable. Johnjbarton (talk) 17:08, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose and speedy close This move request is based on the common misunderstanding between a scientific theory and the word "theory" in casual talk. See Wikipedia:Theory for an explanation of the difference. Cambalachero (talk) 01:35, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

  No, Cambalachero, it is based on concern about what Wikipedia is saying in its own voice. Gravity is established fact and is a physical law, so that WP title is correct. This article opens by saying it is about a physical theory, but its title strongly implies that it is about an established fact, and I am asking if WP should be saying that.

  Please do not pre-suppose that I do not understand the difference between a scientific theory and a common theory. As for the essay you recommended, I've read it but I'm not impressed—it resembles a first draft needing considerable development. Spartathenian (talk) 11:15, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose. The Big Bang is an established factual event. The article only opens the way it does because the precise definition of the event varies between authors. Aseyhe (talk) 03:01, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

  In that case, the lead must need revision. The lead is a summary of the full article and it must absolutely reflect the fundamental points of the article. If the intent of the article is to convey Big Bang as established fact, the lead cannot begin by saying it is a physical theory. Gravity begins by stating its existence as a fundamental interaction. There is much evidence to support Big Bang theory, such as cosmic microwave background, but it remains a theory and Fred Hoyle's steady state theory has not been comprehensively disproved. As I said above, this is a question of what Wikipedia says in its own voice. Spartathenian (talk) 11:03, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose, per common name. Randy Kryn (talk) 04:43, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

  Hi, Randy. You are right. As I've said above, my concern is what WP is saying in its own voice. But, there is no doubt that Big Bang is the term used in common parlance, regardless of fact or theory. I admit I didn't take WP:COMMONNAME into account, although I have been aware of it. Thanks for pointing that out. All the best. Spartathenian (talk) 11:22, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

• You're welcome. Sheldon Cooper is my co-pilot. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:02, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

  The interesting thing about Sheldon is that nearly everyone has known someone like him! Spartathenian (talk) 13:44, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose per above arguments, as well as potential confusion with the television comedy series. Praemonitus (talk) 15:21, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

Given the WP:CONSENSUS, and the salient Wikipedia-based point made by Randy Kryn, I'd like to close this proposal. I understand that I can't do it myself as an involved participant. Spartathenian (talk) 11:26, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Intro

I put the intro in an order that resembles the article TOC. The paragraph matching timeline needs work and the history. The concluding paragraph should be shortened, maybe by moving some into the timeline paragraph. Johnjbarton (talk) 22:00, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

Problems and related issues in physics

The section "Problems and related issues in physics" is puzzling to me. The preceding section "Observational evidence" is a run down of successes for standard Lambda-CDM cosmology. In Problems we seem to rewind and question every aspect of this just-demonstrated success story. I think this misrepresents the current science.

To me a more correct presentation would describe how the Big Bang concept was enlarged with inflation, dark matter, and dark energy to result in the current standard model with its level of success. A much shorter "Outstanding issues" section could outline the open questions. Johnjbarton (talk) 01:53, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

To me it just looks like a provision for WP:NPOV. But I wouldn't object to renaming the section. Praemonitus (talk) 02:39, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I am saying that the current presentation is not neutral. It inappropriately implies the Big Bang cosmology is unsound. The model should be presented as a whole then its results as well as its failing. Its features should not be presented as Problems. Johnjbarton (talk) 02:46, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 March 2025

There is this text:

"...time in the past.[22] but the meaning of this extrapolation in the context of the Big Bang unclear.[23] Moreover..."

It should change in this way:

- "b" goes upper case

- "is" verb inserted

to:

"...time in the past.[22] But the meaning of this extrapolation in the context of the Big Bang is unclear.[23] Moreover..." ________________________^___________________________________________________________________^^_______________________ 93.190.228.94 (talk) 13:07, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

 Done thanks! Johnjbarton (talk) 15:58, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

Problems about the big bang theory improvement

Can you add in the section Problems and related issues in physics - doesn't explain why stellar objects/celestial objects exist? Here is a source https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cjwvgevjjl6o Alimsts (talk) 16:08, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

Also at the end of some Horizon problem paragraphs there are a lot of random numbers and figures like 191-202 et cetera. Can we remove those references? Alimsts (talk) 16:15, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

The numbers 191-202 are page number 191 through page number 202 for the citation. I removed the trailing "-202" as unnecessary for the purpose of finding the source verifying the content. Johnjbarton (talk) 16:31, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

The BBC article is about experiments to try to understand Baryon asymmetry which is already discussed in the article. Johnjbarton (talk) 16:28, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

I mean the 3rd paragraph there, including the byline. Alimsts (talk) 16:41, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

'The current theory of how the Universe came into being can't explain the existence of the planets, stars and galaxies we see around us. ' Alimsts (talk) 16:43, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

That's just a journalist's odd and unhelpful way of describing the issue. The issue is the imbalance of matter and antimatter when particle physics would expect balance. In the case of balance, one possible outcome would be total annihilation, no particles. Other possible outcomes that have been discussed is antimatter galaxies etc. The baryon asymmetry is most likely to be an unforeseen consequence of elementary particle physics, an issue to be solved outside of the Standard Model of particle physics.

In terms of a model of the cosmos, sources take a number of starting points as "the Big Bang". If you start just after the baryons are created, the model is amazing in its effective predictions. The earlier times (higher energies) are technically outside of the bounds of the Standard Model.

There is no reason to change the page based on one sentence by a science correspondent in a sensationalized article. Johnjbarton (talk) 17:25, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

OK Alimsts (talk) 19:05, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

I don't think it would hurt to add a sentence stating what the consequence would be if there was no baryonic asymmetry. It might not be immediately obvious to some readers. Praemonitus (talk) 01:16, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

I agree, but based on a solid source. To be sure, such a consequence would be entirely hypothetical: we don't know why there is asymmetry so any scenario with symmetry is complete conjecture. Johnjbarton (talk) 01:34, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

I added a sentence, but it can't be one like the BBC uses. Symmetry would mean no matter. It is unrelated to mechanisms that create stars. That is, we could have matter and no stars simply by having no dark matter, too high of expansion, etc. Johnjbarton (talk) 02:18, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

My recollection is that baryon symmetry would lead to an abundance of ordinary matter about a billion times lower, but not zero. It's a simple calculation, and the idea is that you get to a low enough abundance that each particle is not expected to meet an antiparticle over the age of the universe. Same idea as dark matter freeze-out. I might be misremembering the numerical outcome though. Aseyhe (talk) 03:30, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

I'd speculate the consequence would be the same; any future concentrations of the matter/antimatter mix would wipe themselves out before objects could form. Praemonitus (talk) 04:52, 21 May 2025 (UTC)