Talk:Big Bang/Archive 12

message: Me being an ammature, I dont understand some parts, I ould like definitons for beginners! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.111.205.42 (talk • contribs) on 16:06, 22 May 2006.
:Just click through the dark matter and dark energy links for explanations. The short version is that "dark matter" is a substance that we've seen indirect evidence for that interacts gravitationally with normal matter but not electromagnetically (doesn't produce or absorb light, doesn't "contact" normal matter the way most observable matter does, might interact via nuclear forces). Galaxies appear to contain large amounts of dark matter, which we notice because it affects the orbits of stars in the galaxy. "Dark energy" is a substance or other type of effect that seems to have mass, but to exert a "negative pressure", causing the universe to expand more quickly. This appears to be spread more or less uniformly throughout space, at least on the scales we can easily observe, and may or may not be related to similar expansion phenomena (the cosmological constant in Einstein's equations or the unknown field that caused cosmic inflation early in the universe's history). For more information, read the links above. --Christopher Thomas 17:24, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Dark Matter / Dark Energy Understanding

message: I realize that the big bang is recognized as the leading theory on the origin of the universe. However, since there are so many unanswered questions, I think the whole theory could get turned on it's head at any time. I would like to see a link or two at the bottom that leads to articles about competing theories, or at least credible criticisms of the big bang theory.
Qwasty 22:07, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's already there, and much debated. See Big Bang#Features, issues and problems and #Opposing views. Art LaPella 22:57, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alternative Theories 

message: OK - I understand the concept of the doppler effect on light and how the redshifts are interpreted to mean that the galaxies are moving farther away from eachother...
But what I don't understand is how anyone can know that "the universe" or "space" itself is expanding as opposed to simply matter moving through space.  In other words, what if 15 billion (or how ever many) years ago, instead of there being a "big bang" there was simply a bang within a larger existing universe.  And ever since then, all this stuff has been expanding out into a really gigantic void which it still hasn't finished crossing after all these years?
What makes physicists so sure that "space" and time and everything began then?  How do they know that what we observe as "the universe" isn't simply a small part of something much larger?  For all we know, couldn't all the known universe simply exist as part of a subatomic particle in some larger "universe?"
:I'll let the professionals answer why they say space itself expands. The answer to everything else is that nobody knows what might be beyond the known universe in extent, time, extra dimensions, parallel universes etc., as described at the end of the first paragraph of Big Bang. Art LaPella 02:23, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Space itself is expanding if you believe the observation that leads to the Hubble Law, you believe that general relativity applies on the largest scales, and that the universe is homogeneous and isotropic (cosmological principle). Once those three assumptions are made, the FRW metric is a natural result and space expands as described by the cosmic scale factor. All of this is currently discussed in the article under the Theoretical Underpinnings section. --ScienceApologist 02:27, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question from - [[Talk:Hubble's law]] - issue should be addressed in this article 

message: Open Questions in Relativistic Physics
Brian 01:39, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Open Questions in Relativistic Physics 

message: Removed to User Talk:Morrigan42. Talk pages are for discussing the article and not for promoting your own ideas. --ScienceApologist 16:14, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another alternate proposal 

message: not just the views of a few narrow minded POV pushers?--F.O.E. 13:25, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please read WP:NPOV. The degree to which various views of the Big Bang are covered should be proportional to the number of experts who support these views. As the vast majority of scientists think some form of the Big Bang model describes the early history of the universe, and as the article is _about_ the Big Bang, the present mentions of alternatives are adequate. --Christopher Thomas 13:37, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure. If Wikipedia had been published before 1953, it would have published Piltdown Man as established science. We have a Wikipedia:Verifiability policy because the alternative isn't that Wikipedians would have magically been the first to know that Piltdown Man was a fraud - the real alternative is that Wikipedians would publish everything from perpetual motion machines to crystal balls in science articles. Scientists should decide if Piltdown Man and his modern equivalents are wrong. Wikipedian amateurs should report those scientific opinions from around the world to the public, not their own amateur opinions. Please study this discussion page and its archives before concluding you have an insight on this issue that we haven't heard over and over and over. Art LaPella 04:58, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

text: As C.Thomas correctly states, alternatives appear insofar as they represent proportionally their support in the scientific community. Because of progress in observation (see for example WMAP), technology, and the foundations of science (namely mathematics and physics) this proportion will change over time.  It is therefore our NPOV obligation to correctly represent this proportion as well as the foundations of the theory itself.  You are always welcome to start an article for an alternative theory on Wiki, provided it is cited correctly and not your own theory... which brings me to my final point: the Big Bang theory rests not upon a single person, era, or worldview.  It is represented here at Wiki as it currently stands: upon generations of observation, physics, and mathematics, and not by "POV Pushers" you speak of.  If you find an alternate theory that stands thus, feel free to contribute it.  And if you'd like to discuss this or any other scientific theory, please let me know on my talk page - I have been a scientist in this field for years and I would be glad to discuss of any ideas, thoughts, or misunderstandings of the current scientific consensus of this theory.  This is my passion, not hubris.  Cheers, Astrobayes 09:18, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Sorry - I'm the amateur, not you, both in paper qualifications and in understanding of the Big Bang's details. Nevertheless, Wikipedia policy makes it clear that we are here to publish the existing consensus. Since you've been a scientist for years, I encourage you to change that consensus through the usual process of scientific journals etc. Art LaPella 01:14, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Once again, this would seem to violate several Wikipedia policies, for instance the template at the top of this discussion page: "This is the talk page for discussing changes to the Big Bang article...this is not a forum for discussing the topic generally." This theory (like all the others) doesn't belong on the main article page unless it has a significant number of influential advocates, not just us. Art LaPella 05:05, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Exactly, which is what I was trying to state above.  P. Venter has mistaken my desire, to hold this article to the standards of the consensus of scientists in this field, with hubris.  I simply stated above what the article reflects: the weight of experiment, mathematics, and physics, and I furthermore hope that our focus upon this article is based upon those criteria rather than who supports or opposes the idea itself.  And I'll say again as I've stated above: anyone who may have a misconception about the current consensus may discuss these on my talk page.  I've worked in this field for years as a physicist and I enjoy sharing knowledge with others, especially if it means a higher quality of articles here on Wiki. I'm confused how within that context my comments can be construed as hubris so I'll clear it up now: my desire is to contribute quality to Wiki - and by that, to share knowledge with others.  Cheers, Astrobayes 22:13, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  shouldn't this article include alternative theories?