Talk:Big Bang/Archive 11

message: Does anyone know if there is a page pondering the cause of the Big Bang, not the event itself?
You're looking for cosmogony. --ScienceApologist 22:38, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think a good way to tell something is missing from an article, is when the same question keeps coming up on the talk page. If our answer is "see cosmogony", would it be OK to add those words with that link at the end of the first paragraph? Art LaPella 23:48, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Excellent suggestion. So added. --ScienceApologist 23:58, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page Query 

message: This article is featured and yet it contains not a single inline citation... It risks being taken to WP:FARC... Mikker ... 17:37, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, the article does have inline citations, they just are not in one of the footnote proposed formats. Since this is only a proposed policy and hasn't been adopted yet, I'm not sure that we need to change the style yet. --ScienceApologist 19:36, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ummmm... correct me if I'm wrong but other than a single external ref, I see no inline citations, be it Harvard or Chicago. Mikker ... 20:26, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There are citations in the old (now much disdained) hyperlink style to outside materials in the text to Hoyle's coining of the term for example. I think that we could have plenty of cases for cited references, so your point is taken. I only think that we should be careful in claiming that an article has no inline citations. Back when the article went through FAC, inline citations weren't as a big of a deal as they are now. --ScienceApologist 20:32, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Right... didn't mean to 'rub anyone's nose in it' - my message was meant as a 'heads up' of sorts. I think this is a great article but numerous (great) articles have recently been FARCed because they fail WP:V. My suggestion is to insert refs (Harvard or Chicago; not externals) where possible. Just a thought... :) Mikker ... 20:47, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the "heads up". I added references I knew off the top of my head. There are others that can be added, I'm sure, but do you think this will stave off a FARC? --ScienceApologist 21:26, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I added a comment about this to Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. While I don't really disagree that some sections of the article could use better referencing, I wonder what the standard for referencing should be for "high level" articles like big bang, which draw on and synthesize a number of lower level articles, like cosmic microwave background. –Joke 00:02, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Featured article 

message: User:FredrickS added a link to empty nest in the "speculative physics beyond the Big Bang" section. The link leads to a page that appears to be both original research and self-promotion (it's based on the contents of a book written by User:FredrickS).
If this is to be listed as a variant of the Big Bang model, it's going to need citations for academic publications about it before it can be added. None have been provided here or at empty nest to date. --Christopher Thomas 01:50, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I added some tags to the page and listed it on VfD. –Joke 01:52, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Empty nest]] 

message: How could the "Big Bang" happen without an action?
It's not a well structured theory.
3/4/06 10:28 PM EST Dudtz
:I think you're promoting the cosmological argument. We're trying to steer that kind of question to cosmogony. Art LaPella 03:43, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually there was an action... there has to have been an action... however its still unknown. --H0riz0n 05:35, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Silly Theory 

message: quoting from big bang entry
"In 1929, Edwin Hubble provided an observational basis for Lemaître's theory. He discovered that, relative to the earth, the galaxies are receding in every direction at speeds directly proportional to their distance from the earth. This fact is now known as Hubble's law (see Edwin Hubble: Mariner of the Nebulae by Edward Christianson). Given the cosmological principle whereby the universe, when viewed on sufficiently large distance scales, has no preferred directions or preferred places, Hubble's law suggested that the universe was expanding. "
Not according to Sandage
Ref:
JOURNAL DE LA SOCIÉTÉ ROYALE
D ASTRONOMIE DU CANADA
Vol. 83, No.6 December 1989 Whole No. 621 
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/diamond_jubilee/1996/sandage_hubble.html
Hubble concluded that his observed log N(m) distribution showed a large departure from Euclidean geometry, provided that the effect of redshifts on the apparent magnitudes was calculated as if the redshifts were due to a real expansion. A different correction is required if no motion exists, the redshifts then being due to an unknown cause. Hubble believed that his count data gave a more reasonable result concerning spatial curvature if the redshift correction was made assuming no recession. To the very end of his writings he maintained this position, favouring (or at the very least keeping open) the model where no true expansion exists, and therefore that the redshift "represents a hitherto unrecognized principle of nature". This viewpoint is emphasized (a) in The Realm of the Nebulae, (b) in his reply (Hubble 1937a) to the criticisms of the 1936 papers by Eddington and by McVittie, and (c) in his 1937 Rhodes Lectures published as The Observational Approach to Cosmology (Hubble 1937b). It also persists in his last published scientific paper which is an account of his Darwin Lecture (Hubble 1953). 
Tommysun 06:02, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That doesn't make this article erroneous, only misleading. A qualifyer like "(but not to Hubble)", with a footnote, may be appropriate. Harald88 10:12, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I commented on the cited part. However, I had not noticed the miseading and POV intro. I correct that. Harald88 07:51, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hubble's law not believed by Hubble.

message: Did the Big Bang actually make the space of the universe? I do not think that is possible :\. I was thinking there could always have been an unlimited amount of space, but the big bang just spread out the matter of the universe. After a while, all the matter from the universe could get pulled into one spot because of gravity and create anoher big bang. Is there a theory for that?
:See Big Crunch and oscillatory universe. Art LaPella 02:23, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A question 

message: Howdy all. I just read this AP article: Evidence for Universe Expansion Found at SFGate.com. While it is very interesting, I'm having trouble understanding how the "marble-sized" Universe could suddenly expand to "a volume larger than all of observable space in less than a trillion-trillionth of a second." This would seem to be faster than the speed of light. How is that possible, even in the early Universe? Did the speed of light become fixed at a later time? Thanks. --NightMonkey 22:22, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See cosmic inflation. --ScienceApologist 16:03, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

text: In easy-to-understand terms, nothing can travel faster than the speed of light in space. But the Big Bang was an expansion of space itself, not THROUGH space. JF Mephisto 09:14, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I just had the exact same question.  I'm reading a great book on the universe and couldn't get my mind around the massive expansion in the first few seconds.  JF Mephisto's simple explanation is great -- one of the moderators might consider adding it to the article (or to cosmic inflation).  Sincerely beautiful article, by the way!  --nathanbeach 02:58, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Expansion faster than the speed of light? 

message: Does the universe have a center point?  If it evolved from a speck of some very small dimensions, that speck must have had a center, but if the universe of today has  no center, where did it go?
And if the speck was finite, how cold some consider today that the universe is infinite?
Thank you.Legoff 07:02, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please see the Reference Desk for factual questions not directly related to the article. -- Ec5618 07:15, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  center of the universe 

message: Here is some fresh news from NASA about the Big Bang. I don't know if any of this information can be useful to this article, but maybe we can use the image, because "NASA material is not protected by copyright unless noted"? --Andrew c 17:56, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  News from NASA 

message: The Big Bang is now accepted widely in scientific circles. We believe that all the known and unknown universe originated from a very small and very dense ball of extremely hot matter, which expanded in all directions at enormous speed. We cannot be sure of the original size of this fiery ball. I think some scientists refer to it as a "singularity", much the same as the centre of a black hole. If a singularity is a point of infinite density and is also infinitely small, then I see a problem with the obvious irregularity and random nature of the universe, even going back to very early times, when the first conglomerations began to take shape. The problem is this: If the universe expanded from a point source of zero dimensions, then in my view it would have had to expand in a perfectly uniform and regular way, and could not have given rise to the highly chaotic and random universe that we see all around us today. However, if the size of the singularity is anything other than infinitely small, then the seeds of all this randomness and irregularity that we now see were contained in that original small fiery ball.-     goddlediddles  22 March 2006
:Quote from Big Bang: "... the universe has expanded from a state in which all the matter and energy in the universe was at an immense temperature and density. Physicists do not widely agree on what happened before this,...". Quote from cosmic inflation:"As a direct consequence of this expansion, all of the observable universe originated in a small causally-connected region. Quantum fluctuations in this microscopic region, magnified to cosmic size, then became the seeds for the growth of structure in the universe...". Art LaPella 23:03, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:   The question of universal irregularity 

message: I'd learned something about big bang before I came to this article. I remember I read somewhere that the farthest extreme in the universe that man can "see" is about 10 - 20 billion light years away. But according to the big bang theory, the history of cosmos began 13.7 billion years ago marked by an explosion. If so, the cosmos must have expanded at some stage with a speed greater than the speed of light so as to achieve its current dimension, but this obviously sounds absurd to the ear of anyone who knows the basic laws of physics. Where did my logic go wrong? --Lightdawn 06:50, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cosmos expanded faster than the speed of light? 

message: Where is the reference for this number... I think its old. Even Hawking, Greene and others are not nailing down an exact time for the begining and from what I can remember from listening to hawkings books and Greens all notable scientists are putting the figure between 15+ billion years (with a max of 18). I think this information is a bit old and someone need to update it with the latest info. --H0riz0n 05:45, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Number is correct. The discovery of dark energy pushed the Age of the Universe down. --ScienceApologist 05:34, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, the 13.7 is the latest estimate, based on new data. The 15+ billion estimates were older, and now obsolete--AaronM 17:54, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  ...about 13.7 billion years ago 

message: Actually Hawking has proven that information can travel faster then light in his black hole research. He found that black holes do in fact emit light/energy due to the quantum teleportation priciple -- Hawking Radiation. So why couldnt the universe expand from the quantum state in a similar manner, thus travelling faster than the speed of light and creating those regions in disputed in the Horizon problem? --H0riz0n 06:04, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Space can expand faster than light without violating relativity because a vacuum contains no information transfer mechanism (information must transmit through the vacuum). Hawking radiation isn't precisely information traveling faster than light (which violates special relativity) -- instead it is a consequence of quantum tunneling. However, quantum tunelling could be a cosmogony explanation and there is mechanistic applications of it found in cosmic inflation. --ScienceApologist 05:39, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Horizon problem -- negation 

message: Today, User:Enormousdude made the following two edits:
*removed
 the Belgian Catholic priest as characterizing Lemaître
*added the following parenthesis to the heading section
 (natural evolution of universe constantly takes place). 
IMHO, none of these edits improved the article. Especially the last one with its link to the evolution-article is irrelevant and should be reverted. --Sir48 16:48, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not taking sides, but such revert explanations should be encourages. :) Art LaPella 18:26, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revert edits 

message: Shouldn't we call this by it's more proper name, the Standard Model of Cosmology? Or at least mention that it is called that? Just a suggestion SA@calcnet 03:16, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As I understand it, the "standard model" of cosmology (aka classical cosmology) is the cosmology associated with matter domination (omega_matter > 0), where flatness was not assumed (omega_k >= 0), and dark energy was ignored (omega_lambda = 0). This was replaced in the mid-nineties with the Lambda-CDM model which is the current "model" where omega_lambda + omega_matter = 1 and omega_k = 0. This is different from the Big Bang which doesn't distinguish between particulars. --ScienceApologist 05:32, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Technical name 

message: At the Overwiev there is an incomplete sentence:
:There is no compelling physical model for the first 10-33 seconds of the universe, before the phase transition called for ??????? by grand unification theory.
-- Harp 12:15, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Huh? The phase transition is called for by GUT. Maybe the wording is awkward, but there isn't anything missing in the sentence. --ScienceApologist 12:27, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry my English is not to good :-( -- Harp 16:04, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing part