Talk:Big Bang/Archive 14

message: The history section of this article is a mess.  It does not deserve featured status. Charlie T 22:58, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It never hurts to be a little more specific. What in particular about it is bad? Luna Santin 23:19, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Charlie, please sign your comments with four tildes ~ ~ ~ ~ .  It puts your username and date on the comments and helps others prioritize discussions on article improvements based upon recent posts vs. old ones.  And I agree with Luna in that a more specific suggestion as to how we can improve the history section would be so much more helpful than the vague complaint you've written here.  Thanks, Astrobayes 04:21, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

text: It's been a while since I read this article.  So, I gave the history section another read and I found it to be highly readable.  It isn't too technical, it cites its sources, presents the information logically and chronologically.  So, without a more specific constructive criticism from an individual, I'm quite confused about what exactly needs to be changed. Astrobayes 04:27, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Big Bang History Section 

message: It looked to me like there was a reasonable consensus, so I implemented the proposal to move the Milne model and the oscillatory universe to the history section.  Pervect 09:49, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fine with me. --Pjacobi 10:12, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I concur.  :-)  JDoolin 17:19, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Implemented edits 

message: As is noted in the Dark Matter article, the new observation of actual dark matter - independently of ordinary matter - by the Kavli Insititute at SLAC as well as other collaborators all over the world is a milestone in the synthesis of a coherent picture of the Universe and I have therefore updated that information in the references to Dark Matter here in this article.  Cheers, Astrobayes 21:51, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have adjusted your phrasing slightly to make it clear that the observations are still gravitational in nature, and it is not known what kind of particle composes dark matter. –Joke 03:12, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: All good points, and thanks for the help.  I am familiar with the team who made the discovery and if I hear any new public news I'll gladly share it here.  I got wind of some news yesterday about the connection between this discovery and a new probe for dark energy, but I'm going to wait until it's published to post it.  Needless to say, exciting stuff is coming down the pipe for the Dark Energy and Dark Matter Wiki articles. Cheers, Astrobayes 19:00, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dark Matter Discovery Noted 

message: If we have established that the singularity exists, have we established if it still exists or that it just existed? Any ideas on the arguements or counterarguements for this topic or where the arguements are at right now? (Simonapro 14:59, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The purely-GR version of the model predicts that a singularity existed at the very beginning of the universe, as the starting point for expansion. This singularity no longer exists under that model. As I mentioned in the previous thread, a more realistic view is that the view based on General Relativity is only valid back to the point where GR is expected to break down (when the primordial plasma is at the Planck temperature, or when the curvature of spacetime is greater than some Planck-related value that I'm forgetting at the moment). Under this view, no singularity ever existed, though we don't really know what _did_ happen prior to this point (that would take a theory of quantum gravity to handle the extreme space curvature, and a theory of everything to handle force unification at Planck temperatures). --Christopher Thomas 15:07, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Under this current Big Bang model it seems to me that the universe had a beginning although it is possible that an infinite universe was created after the Big Bang. Is my statement a possibility? (Simonapro 20:16, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Singularity exists or singularity existed?