Talk:Big Bang/Archive 16

message: A new user continues to make edits to this page that are slightly problematic. The prose he includes doesn't add any substantive information to the article and introduce a misconcpetion that inflation accounts for the current scale of the universe (which it doesn't because expansion is still occuring). --ScienceApologist 15:59, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Report it as vandalism? Kind regards, --MisteryX 07:23, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You mean report it at WP:AIV? Rule 1 there says "The vandal is active now, has received a proper set of warnings, and has vandalized after a recent last warning, except in unusual circumstances." "Now" means the last few hours, not months - reminding a vandal months later would just give him the thrill of eluding us this long. Besides, it doesn't sound like vandalism - see Wikipedia:Avoid the word "vandal"‎. Art LaPella 17:40, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah! I didn't check the date, my bad! However, the subject is still a vandal target. Anyway, sorry for bothering. :) Kind regards, --MisteryX 09:02, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edits by [[User:Bhenderson]] 

message: Instead of seeing the Universe as originating from an infinitely small and dense partical of matter, why not see the beginning of the physical Universe as a slowdown of the vibrational frequency of energy, creating matter out of a portion of "all that is".  
iamcurioustoo````
:If you mean that's how matter appeared from a point (or at least a small volume), we don't know - see the main article's second paragraph. If you mean this effect made matter appear everywhere, Big Bang theory disagrees with you. Since this discussion doesn't belong here (see the second info box at the top of this page), is there a blog or something where such theories are discussed? Art LaPella 21:32, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's send people to BAUT forum if they want to discuss such ideas. --ScienceApologist 21:34, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Instead of Big Bang, Big Slowdown 

message: There should be an article containing a summary of all the theories. I can't even find information on other theories. Zazaban 22:25, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's called non-standard cosmology. To link to it from the main Big Bang article, you would have to click one of the piped links labeled "alternatives" or "alternative cosmological models". Art LaPella 23:33, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Hmm, I've never looked at the Origin of the universe redirect. In other contexts, "room for alternative theories" is what this talk page kills most of its time debating. The consensus seems to be that the Big Bang is almost the only POV among scientists, although other POV's are more widespread among amateurs, many of whom argue on this talk page. If someone did write an Origin of the universe article, it would have to emphasize the Big Bang almost exclusively, with perhaps more of a nod to creationists. Art LaPella 02:30, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Most if not all of the naturalistic "alternatives" do not posit an "origin" of the universe per se. While there are religious groups who talk of "God" as the origin of the universe, usually they're dealing with creationism rather than science. It is an editorial decision to decide that when readers are interested in the term "origin of the universe" they are interested in scientific accounts since the universe is more of a scientific term than creation. --ScienceApologist 13:12, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Make Origin of the universe a seperate article. 

message: Bib bang sound update   --BMF81 12:49, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bib bang sound update 

message: The CMB section states that the radiation is "composed of photons emitted during baryogenesis." It's the result of recombination of the plasma, not baryogenesis.
169.229.15.204 21:17, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The photons originate from baryogenesis but they are scattered by the plasma before recombination. --ScienceApologist 21:22, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Actually I think a third point of view on the photon issue is useful here...  The photons are in thermal equilibrium with whatever is around, and so are being constantly emitted and absorbed by whatever charged particles happen to be floating about (at least until recombination).  There are certainly photons present well before baryogenesis.  But, if you take a look at your typical QED Feynman diagram, for example, and you can see the photon lines ending and beginning on electron lines -- photon number is not conserved, and for all intents and purposes the creation of a photon can be taken to mean when it was emitted.  Recombination is really the only time at which a photon can be emitted and have a decent chance of not being re-absorbed before making it to a CMB experiment on Earth.  So I'd say that recombination is probably the best choice of epochs at which to say the CMB photons were made, since pretty much any photon we see in the CMB came from then! Any objections? Wesino 23:56, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  CMB mistake 

message: This may already be in the article, or irrelevant (lol), but here's an article on the reconciliation of Helium-3 theories vs evidence. Scientists reconcile discrepancy with Big Bang theory. Anchoress 09:20, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Helium-3 update 

message: Hi, I am thinking the second sentence in the Big Bang#History sentence could be strengthened by someone who knows more about the history of the theory.  Right now it begins with "Observers determined..." but this is a little weak.  Which observers?  When?  Is it possible to say when the first person claimed this, or when it began to be accepted as common knowledge?
It looks like in the next paragraph Hubble's main new contribution was to find that the redshift was proprtional to the distance, which from the looks of the paragraph was unknown 'till then.  Is this right?  Wesino 14:13, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  History section 

message: Hi everybody. I have a sincere question that I can't seem to find the answer to anywhere else (at least in layman's terms) and I am hoping someone here can answer me. I don't study physics. I study (don't laugh) music. However, I am fascinated by physics and especially by astronomy and cosmology. Anyway, my question is this: If the universe is expanding in some three-dimensional shape such as a sphere, what is it expanding into? In other words, an expanding balloon is doing so inside of something - a room or a box for instance. So, in the case of an expanding universe, what would be analogous to the room or box? Does this question recieve serious consideration in the world of physics? What are some ideas? Know any places I can go? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Curtis bartok 21 (talk • contribs) 02:49, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Try metric expansion of space.  Cheers, Wesino 01:43, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another Question 

message: If all matter,all space and time didn't exist before the big bang then what went bang and what was it's sorce? neilje—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Neilje (talk • contribs) 15:33, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We don't know what (if anything) was before the Big Bang, or if that one-time event (if it was indeed one-time) needed a source as things do today, or even if "before the Big Bang" is as meaningless as north of the North Pole. See the second paragraph of the article. Art LaPella 22:38, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Big bang. What went bang and where was it 

message: I redistributed the contents of the 6 archives found in this version of this talk page into 15 archives because the 6 archives were too long (not suitable for dial up connections). I corrected the links in the archive box above. --Meno25 01:53, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archives 

message: This link below talks about published results of a study using WMAP data to look for evidence of "lensing" effects which should have been seen (but weren't) if the microwave background was a Big Bang remnant.
It was added recently and almost immediatly removed by editor ScienceApologist with the comment: "not a very good artilce. Removed per WP:RS". Here is the article:
*Big Bang's Afterglow Fails Intergalactic 'Shadow' Test, September 2006, ScienceDaily, source: University of Alabama Huntsville (UAH)
The article seems to be based in the following scientific paper by Lieu, Mittaz and Shuang-Nan Zhang, UAH,  "The Sunyaev-Zel'dovich effect in a sample of 31 clusters: A comparison between the X-ray predicted and WMAP observed decrement," , Astrophysical Journal, Sept. 1, 2006, Vol. 648, No. 1, p. 176. Thanks.
::This artilce is sensationalizing the content of the paper. Since it is popular level, it is important we don't include it lest people get the wrong idea. --ScienceApologist 13:38, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, the article is non-scientific in that it's based on a news release. Xiner (talk, email) 01:39, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

text: If the material is published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, then the journal article itself should be referenced - not the sensationalized article on Science Daily (a website with a history of giving undue emphasis on one or more parts of research than others). I'm with SA on this.  The Science Daily article is a bad idea.  If you want a link, put one in for the Journal Article itself. Astrobayes 14:36, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Big Bang's Afterglow Fails: reliable source 

message: Why does stellar drift redirect to Big Bang, but there is no reference to the stellar drift in the article whatsoever? --65.183.165.85 17:31, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably because the Big Bang is the biggest cause of the motion of stars, and I didn't find a good alternative article for that redirect. Proper motion and radial velocity would be good if we could redirect to both at the same time, but we can't. Star#Kinematics doesn't work because we can't use the # symbol in a redirect. Stargate (device) is another possibility, as the term "stellar drift" is used mainly on that show, not by scientists. Art LaPella 22:33, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Since you know about the topic, Art LaPella, why not set up a disambiguation page, especially since there's no mention of the term in this article at the moment? Xiner (talk, email) 01:28, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

text: A disambiguation page is normally for several senses of a term, not for a cause, two components, an explanation and a fictional device it complicates. A short article could be helpful although I've seldom written anything like that. Art LaPella 04:54, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You could start a stub. I think any info is better than none at all, and there are disambig pages with just two links. I think this would be useful. Xiner (talk, email) 14:21, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

text: OK, but please look at stellar drift. I don't usually write that much prose because it gets rewritten or deleted. Art LaPella 22:44, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Alright, I understand. I've watchlisted the page and do some copyedit later. Thanks! Xiner (talk, email) 22:59, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Stellar drift

message: So, the only of what happened before the Big Bang, was that it was in an extrmeely dense state? What exactly "was" before the Big Bang, and why did it occur. I don't see these explained in the article. 
I personally don't know enough about the Big Bang, so I was just perplexed not tosee any information here on that. 74.137.230.39 20:36, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Scientists don't know that either. Maybe we should re-explain that answer (or non-answer) to that ever-popular question, but the article's second paragraph already covers it. Art LaPella 06:02, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

text: As the article explains (least I think it does), some believe that question is not valid. Weird, I know. Xiner (talk, email) 17:41, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Confusion