Talk:Georges Lemaître

message: It seems improbable that a man who quit university to serve in WWI for four years would get a doctorate two years after the end of the conflict and then go on to get another one at MIT.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.49.218.149 (talk) 16:05, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Both doctorates (one in applied mathematics, the 2nd in physics) are real and documented. https://genealogy.math.ndsu.nodak.edu/id.php?id=22743 For American readers: a doctorate in Belgium in those days entailed no coursework at all, just original research -- the bachelor's and master's were compressed into a single "licence/licentiaat" degree and contained all the coursework. 2A0D:6FC2:4DD:200:4038:5459:CC66:A955 (talk) 15:40, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

text: What's so unreasonable about it?  The late Dr. Jerry Pournelle had two PhDs, one in Psychology and one in Political Science, and a Masters in Statistical Inference as well.  All of them were earned, not honorary.  JDZeff (talk) 20:37, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Education - TWO doctorates?

message: The statement "Lemaître proposed what became known as the Big Bang theory of the origin of the Universe" is wrong. If you have a look at his 1931 paper you will see that his cosmological model is one that starts with a steady-state solution, Einstein's steady state solution. It grows from this steady state due to instabilities caused by Einstein's cosmological constant. This is not a Big Bang model, but a model where the universe is arbitrarily old. Lemaitre's 1931 (reference 8) is the main source for this, but I'll look for another source as well before modifying the article Mollwollfumble (talk) 04:18, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Wrong.Einsten said to Lemaitre "your mathematics is correct but your physics is abominable"  Einstien disagreed with Lemaitre's Primordial Egg theory.  Yet Lemaitre got the idea from Einsteins relativity equations (relative velocities).  Lemaitre postulated that if everything is moving, then everything must have come from somewhere.  Einstein advocated a cosmological "constant" which we now know was completely wrong.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.222.194.29 (talk) 17:01, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The idea of a big bang existed before Lemaitre, thanks to Edgar Allen Poe
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/edgar-allan-poe-cosmologist/
.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.181.236.222 (talk) 04:51, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  did not invent Big Bang 

message: In the first paragraph the article states that Lemaitre published his "Big Bang" theory between 1927 and 1933.  The following sentence states that Einstein believed in a steady state model of the universe.  The link to the steady state model explains that that model was developed in 1948 by Fred Hoyle and collegues.  How could Einstein have believed in a steady state model in the 1930's when the model had not been proposed until 1948?
Einstein proposed a steady state cosmological model in 1917. --isidora 21:58, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This isn't exactly true.  Einstein proposed a modification to the laws of relativity to make possible an eternal universe and initially strongly disagreed with what became known as the big bang theory.  However this is not the same as the steady state theory proposed by Hoyle in 1948.  I won't get into that theory here, but there is significant difference.  I'll update this article.  TastyCakes 20:54, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

text: The steady state model of Hoyle bears no connection to the steady state model of Einstein. The steady state model of Einstein is a true steady state in that the universe is unmoving and mass is conserved. In the steady state model of Hoyle the universe is expanding rapidly, and mass is not conserved in the Lagrangian frame of reference.Mollwollfumble (talk) 04:18, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  timeline discrepancy 

message: How do you pronounce his name?  I don't speak French.  I can read IPA or X SAMPA, if need be.24.21.139.41 06:34, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: pronounced George Leh-meht-reh.laburke 05:00, 27 September 2007
I am belgian as was Georges Lemaître and I think that the .ogg file proposed after his name is not a good pronunciation of his name. I afirm that the "r" should be more stressed as an "rh".
French speaker here--Yeah, the pronunciation on the ogg is terrible. It should have an emphasis on the "meh" and then a secondary emphasis on the "rh" sound at the end.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.232.90.7 (talk) 18:08, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

text: I inserted a new pronunciation ogg file that I consider to be closer to standard French. —capmo (talk) 23:52, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

text: Yes, in French his name is pronounced "zhorge" (first e is mute). Listen to the pronunciation file at the beginning of the article for a reference. —capmo (talk) 23:52, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Pronunciation?

message: As Wikipedia doesn't like trivia sections, and as the material doesn't jar too much with the rest of the stuff on the page, could someone move *Trivia* into the main section? Pittsburgh Poet (talk) 22:44, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changing Things Around 

message: The last paragraph reads: "He died on June 20, 1966 shortly after having learned of the discovery of cosmic microwave background radiation, proof of his intuitions about the birth of the Universe."  In science, one cannot actually "prove" something (as the article on the Scientific Method explains).  This needs to be re-written to say something more along the lines of: "He died on June 20, 1966, shortly after having learned of the discovery of cosmic microwave background radiation, which provided evidence for this intuitions about the birth of the Universe."  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.7.61.254 (talk) 22:03, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proof of His Intuitions? 

message: "This interest grew with age until it absorbed him almost completely."
I don't get the point of this very vague remark and I can't seem to find the source either.
Ha ha, yeah, I also found that wording unusual (and funny). It almost sounds like he was eventually assimilated into the computer... ;)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.42.29.28 (talk) 01:38, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  I'm sorry, what ? 

message: Why is his work mentioned before his biography? This article is about him -- it has his name as the title -- and it strikes me as highly unusual to place his work before his biography. (It even occurred to me that perhaps someone didn't want people reading about a priest being a scientist and hoped they'd leave after reading the 'work' section...) Consider the article on Hitler: his early life is mentioned before the work he's known for.
Can't we switch the two sections? Certainly, the summary before the contents is appropriate, but we shouldn't be putting the cart before the horse. Please let's switch Contents 1 & 2. -- Newagelink (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 04:06, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Biography before Work? 

message: He invented lolcats?
"Friedmann was handicapped by living and working in the USSR, and died in 1925, soon after inventing lolcats, now known as the Friedmann-Lemaître-Robertson-Walker metric."
: I agree. Alexander Friedmann was the first Lemaitre. Calling Lemaitre father of the Big Bang and thus ignore Friedman - I think it's not right.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.124.19.173 (talk) 18:47, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: lolcats?

message: I think I have a problem with "He was the first person to propose the theory of the expansion of the Universe, widely misattributed to Edwin Hubble" per our core policy WP:NPOV. --John (talk) 16:32, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe we could change "widely" to "usually", which has less connotation? Lordelicht (talk) 20:41, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV 

message: The article currently reads "Lemaître translated his article into English in 1931 with the help of Arthur Eddington but the part of it pertaining to the estimation of the "Hubble constant" are not translated in the 1931 paper, for reasons that have never been properly explained [10]."  This is incorrect.  The translator of the article is anonymous.  It is a bit of a scandal that these pages were not translated.  Some have suggested Hubble translated the paper and left them out on purpose but we don't know that.  The translator is unknown.  As far as I know, there is no evidence Arthur Eddington translated the paper either.  We should not blame Eddington for the scandal. RonCram (talk) 12:43, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  This statement is incorrect 

message: This has been said too many times already, but people still make the mistake. As per Encyclopedia Britannica's article on Lemaître. He was not a Jesuit. The American Museum of Natural History's article has nothing on him being a Jesuit. A biography written about him called "'A Day Without Yesterday': Georges Lemaître & the Big Bang." Commonweal Magazine Vol. 127 No. 6 (March 24, 2000), and featured on Catholic Education in this article - I would like to think that would know whether he was a Jesuit, says that he was not a Jesuit. PBS's biography also has nothing on him being a Jesuit. Therefore, anything that contradicts these established, verifiable secondary sources needs to clearly show that was a Jesuit by stating how, where and when he became one. Pjposullivan (talk) 03:25, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: The Tablet, a weekly Catholic publication, categorically states in this direct scan of an article about George Lemaître that "he would become a diocesan priest, not a Jesuit". Pjposullivan (talk) 03:39, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not a Jesuit 

message: Lemaitre was not the first to propose the idea of an expanding universe in 1927. Before him, there was Soviet physicist Alexander Friedmann who had originally done so in a paper in 1922 (originally published in Russian, and published in German in 1924 which was when Einstein got note of it) where he derived it from Einstein field equations from General Relativity, with the Friedmann equations as the result which postulated a dynamic universe which could expand as well as collapse. --79.242.222.168 (talk) 19:58, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Did not invent theory of expanding universe 

message: "In January 1933, Lemaître and Einstein, who had met on three occasions—in 1927 in Brussels, at the time of a Solvay Conference, in 1932 in Belgium, at the time of a cycle of conferences in Brussels, and in 1935 at Princeton—traveled together...". ??? I wasn't aware he also mastered time travel. Rcbutcher (talk) 09:17, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Date error ?

message: Would it be more accurate to say that Lemaître (and Friedmann) developed a hypothesis and that Hubbell confirmed it? Hereby promoting it to theory.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:1C0B:129:7D2B:E424:1EDE:619B (talk) 01:54, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Theory vs Hypothesis

message: I'll introduce this by noting that a certain secular news outlet once described the Tomb of Jesus Christ as, "the place where Christians believe Jesus *IS* [sic] buried." The description was corrected after a hew and cry, but it highlights the tendency of secularists to misunderstand religious beliefs, presenting them (however inadvertently) in a misleading fashion. In this particular article, there is a claim that Pope Pius XII pronounced that Lemaitre's work "provided scientific validation for Catholicism," a statement that is astoundingly preposterous in light of contemporary reports that the pope proposed that the theory provided scientific support for (1) the existence of God, and (2) the story of creation in Genesis.http://inters.org/pio-xii-lemaitre Since all theists believe in God, and all religious Jews, Christians, and Muslims believe the story of creation in Genesis, then it is illogical to characterize the pope's proposal as that which Steven Sotor and Neil deGrasse Tyson assert. I think it's relevant to note here that Tyson still insists that the Catholic Church imprisoned Galileo for proposing that the earth revolves around the sun, whereas even Wikipedia articles on the topic provide sources showing that the Galileo Affair was NOT a result of the Catholic Church "suppressing science," or "regarding science with suspicion." In this and other matters, Tyson reveals an anti-Catholic bias, and as a result, his presentation of much of the history of science is really, really amateur, to put it kindly. It's also incorrect to assert, as Sotor and Tyson do, that Lemaître "kept [science and religion] entirely separate, treating them as different, parallel interpretations of the world, both of which he believed with personal conviction." This is a gross misunderstanding, to put it mildly. The source I cited above and re-use herehttp://inters.org/pio-xii-lemaitre is just one example of a thorough presentation of how the Church approaches both science and religion -- not separately, but rather placing science in the subordinate role, in that science cannot contradict Scripture and Tradition, and any scientific proposal that does is false (e.g. the Nazi approach to the Theory of Evolution as leading to "races" of "supermen" and "inferior races," and eugenics). I'm not familiar with Simon Singh, but as he presents similar mischaracterizations, I question his sources. Rather than simply rest on citing sources that present their own emotional interpretations of this history, I suggest that it's more appropriate to go straight to the first-hand sources, which aren't that hard to find. As it stands, the entire mini-section that references Pope Pius XII and his involvement, such as it was, should be re-written to eliminate the buffoonery that is (possibly inadvertently) presented. KiAnCaFleur (talk) 23:52, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can someone please cite less biased sources? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Georges Lemaître. 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  tag to http://www.physicstoday.org/resource/1/phtoad/v19/i9/p119_s2?bypassSSO=1
*Added  tag to http://www.physicstoday.org/resource/1/phtoad/v64/i8/p8_s1
*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
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110414003247/http://www.uclouvain.be/en-316446.html to http://www.uclouvain.be/en-316446.html
*Added  tag to http://www.ams.org/mathscinet/pdf/0031739.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110716073900/http://www.ras.org.uk/awards-and-grants/awards/269?task=view to http://www.ras.org.uk/awards-and-grants/awards/269?task=view
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) 08:37, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: It's very odd. I'm an atheist. I have some issues believing everything about this theory, which stinks of genesis as well as moving the goalposts every time the numbers don't add up. I don't think the fact he is a priest is irrelevant to this article. I think it's very important that he be shown in the full priestly regalia he never dropped, and I find it incredibly suspicious that when I came to wikipedia to find a photo to show my friend, it's not here. Look, I'm not saying you have to write in my atheist opposition to the big-bang theory. My personal opinion that this is just god through the backdoor and that much of this stuff is going to end up in the dustbin, along with the multiverse and time travel crap that people are tying into it. I recognize that that is my personal opinion and all I can do is read with interest the scientists that are bringing up new analysis that challenges the prevailing theory until one day hopefully a breakthrough in evidence can overcome the mere hints of observable evidence that is underpinning the current theory. That's not for me to engage in on wikipedia. But at least put the picture that will let every reader know that the man who did much to promote this in the early days was a priest. You owe that much.--70.53.205.79 (talk) 01:07, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where's the photo of this priest? 

message: It's not really important, but what rank of Monsignor was he precisely elevated? Chaplain of HH (then called, I believe, "Privy Chamberlain of HH")? Domestic Prelate? Protonotary Apostolic Supernumerary?
The reason I'm asking is because I'm German, and according to our use only the former are called Monsignor, the others are called Prelate, and I wonder whether I should write about "Msgr Lemaitre" or "Prelate Lemaitre" if wishing to be brief but correct.--2001:A61:260C:C01:EDD3:6A4C:4E02:BFA0 (talk) 19:13, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Grade of Monsignor

message: Hi, all; I noticed, that in November 2018 an IP changed the last sentence of the introduction from "origin of the universe" to "creation of the universe", see here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Georges_Lema%C3%AEtre&diff=next&oldid=871231837
I undid the change and rephrased the sentence slightly. Greetings from Vienna/Austria, -- Uwaga budowa (talk) 16:18, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Introduction: creation -> origin 

message: The first link within the "See also" section of the page goes to "Cold Big Bang" where Lemaître is cited. Nowhere do we learn how he went from a cold to a hot big bang. That is a fundamental transition. I can't find any history about it. Help! BruceCamber (talk) 13:33, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Cold Big Bang becomes Hot Big Bang. When? How?

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:07, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: The panel with the digram showing an "impression" of the big bang model has the word "singularity" in the caption which would be easily removed but also in the graphic. There has not been a singularity in the model since the hypothesis of exponential inflation replaced it around the 1980s. Could this be corrected? George Dishman (talk) 14:18, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Singularity or not 

message: , you recently reverted my edit without explanation. Care to explain why? I removed that text because it was poorly inserted into the article (randomly calling him by his full name and describing what he did; isn't that what the article was about?) and contained weasel words (who is "news"?). It also didn't explain its own significance; what is this interview about? An anonymous username, not my real name 13:21, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Interview