Content deleted Content added
Tag: Reverted |
m Archiving 1 discussion(s) to Talk:Big Bang/Archive 25) (bot |
||
| (41 intermediate revisions by 17 users not shown) | |||
Line 3:
| image = [[File:Stop hand nuvola.svg|80px]]
| style = width: 80%;
| text = '''IMPORTANT''': This is '''[[WP:NOT|not]]''' the place to discuss how you think the universe began, or to discuss whether or not the Big Bang model is correct. This page is for discussing '''improvements to the article'''. The article is ''about'' the Big Bang model, with content based on information presented in peer-reviewed scientific literature about it or other [[WP:RS|appropriate sources]]. See [[Wikipedia:No original research]] and [[Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines]]. For religious aspects, see [[Religious interpretations of the Big Bang theory]].
}}
{{Talk header|}}
{{Article history
|action1=PR
Line 67:
}}
== Needs more sources ==▼
Every online source I have looked at says there's a lot of evidence disproving the other theories of the beginning of the universe or existence in totality. However, the Wikipedia article mentions only one, a book from 1996. Where are the rest of the sources? [[User:Galactiger|Galactiger]] ([[User talk:Galactiger|talk]]) 20:45, 26 January 2024 (UTC)▼
: I've added a link to '[[non-standard cosmology]]' in the 'See also' section. [[User:Praemonitus|Praemonitus]] ([[User talk:Praemonitus|talk]]) 01:03, 27 January 2024 (UTC)▼
==Wiki Education assignment: English Composition 1102 085==
{{dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment | course = Wikipedia:Wiki_Ed/College_of_DuPage/English_Composition_1102_085_(Spring) | assignments = [[User:Jgleana|Jgleana]] | start_date = 2024-03-04 | end_date = 2024-05-02 }}
== The article's intro is mistaken twice ==
(1) A theory and one of its elements, are quite different things. The cosmos' expansion, the Big Bang momemt, tP etc. are just elements of the theory !!!!!
(2) The first formulations of the Big Bang Theory were written already in 1922 by [[Alexander Friedmann]]. based upon his own [[Friedmann equations | equations]]. So currently the article is also wrong regarding the first main step of the theory.
Therefore I suggest the following intro :
According to contemporary science, The Big Bang is the first moment of the universe.
Its very existence, characteristics and the physical and cosmological processes that followed, are the
main elements of a theory named The Big Bang Theory.
Based on his own Friedmann equations,
[[Alexander Friedmann]] contributed in 1922 the origin of the theory ...... [[User:יוסי ברנע בן פנינה|יוסי ברנע בן פנינה]] ([[User talk:יוסי ברנע בן פנינה|talk]]) 01:21, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
:This makes sense to me. [[User:Ymblanter|Ymblanter]] ([[User talk:Ymblanter|talk]]) 12:37, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
:: Both Alexander Friedmann and George Lemaître proposed an expanding metric for the universe based on solutions to Einstein's theory of General Relativity. In 1928, Lemaître suggested that the universe may have originated at a single point -- a "primeval atom". Note that Hoyle's 1948 [[steady-state model]] allowed for an expanding universe with no big bang. Hence, an expanding universe did not necessarily imply a big bang. I think that's why Lemaître gets credited. [[User:Praemonitus|Praemonitus]] ([[User talk:Praemonitus|talk]]) 13:38, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
:I disagree on point (1). The "big bang" as an event does not even have a consistent definition within scientific discourse. It is better for the article's opening to describe the (well defined) theory instead of attempting to describe the (ill defined) event. [[User:Aseyhe|Aseyhe]] ([[User talk:Aseyhe|talk]]) 20:26, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
== 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"
: This topic is covered by [[Religious interpretations of the Big Bang theory]]. Thanks. [[User:Praemonitus|Praemonitus]] ([[User talk:Praemonitus|talk]]) 17:18, 8 November 2023 (UTC)▼
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?
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.
▲== Needs more sources ==
: 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. [[User:Praemonitus|Praemonitus]] ([[User talk:Praemonitus|talk]]) 13:10, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
▲Every online source I have looked at says there's a lot of evidence disproving the other theories of the beginning of the universe or existence in totality. However, the Wikipedia article mentions only one, a book from 1996. Where are the rest of the sources? [[User:Galactiger|Galactiger]] ([[User talk:Galactiger|talk]]) 20:45, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
==Article presently lacks words Jewish, Torah, Bible, Biblical==
▲: I've added a link to '[[non-standard cosmology]]' in the 'See also' section. [[User:Praemonitus|Praemonitus]] ([[User talk:Praemonitus|talk]]) 01:03, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
Since the article first sentence refers to [[Georges Lemaitre]], a priest, surely the word Biblical is a major lack. Since this scientist/physicist is not known to have denied the existence if a Cre-ator, somehow there is room for additional wikitext.
A 2014 article with the title "New Big Bang evidence supports Biblical creation, says Orthodox physicist" and I'll try to shoehorn it in, but first it's to be recognized that the article's LEDE's "Physics lacks" wording appears to be misplaced. Shoehorn second. [[User:Nuts240|Nuts240]] ([[User talk:Nuts240|talk]]) 01:23, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
:Huh? Writing doesn't generally benefit from a robust checklist of Words That Must Appear—especially ones that aren't jargon particular to the topic.
:Perhaps you should pause and try to concretely state what your editorial concerns actually are, given you yourself are describing the potential remedies as "shoehorning". [[User:Remsense|<span style="border-radius:2px 0 0 2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F;color:#fff">'''Remsense'''</span>]][[User talk:Remsense|<span lang="zh" style="border:1px solid #1E816F;border-radius:0 2px 2px 0;padding:1px 3px;color:#000">诉</span>]] 02:46, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
▲:
| |||