Talk:Big Bang

	This science related article has been awarded BRONZE status for quality. It's getting there, but could be better with improvement. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.

I expect this to be considerably revised by people who know a lot more than me, but I thought it was needed. Keep ^{a £10 note hidden} 09:56, 22 August 2007 (CDT)

Oh yes! I capitalised both words - if Godbotherers can always insist on a cap then so can we atheists. Keep ^{a £10 note hidden} 10:01, 22 August 2007 (CDT)

Nice work. Lovely. What is the theory that uses P-branes? Is that supersting(?), the 11 dimension one I think. From what I forget, a couple of P-branes smacked together and *poof* the BB happened...or will happen or something.St. CЯacke® 10:44, 22 August 2007 (CDT)

I've read about 'em but then you get "what spacetime were the branes in?"

Btw I know you're not God - I am! Keep ^{your feet dry} 10:51, 22 August 2007 (CDT)

"Godbotherers?" --AKjeldsen^Godspeed! 10:53, 22 August 2007 (CDT)

(nods) Godbotherers! Keep ^{your feet dry} 11:00, 22 August 2007 (CDT)

Human, there's estimates from 10 - 20 billion years. Depending on some constant (Hubbles?) so ± 5 is righter. I've googled it & no-one absolutely agrees on an age. Keep ^{me out of it!} 12:49, 22 August 2007 (CDT)

Let us get a cake for the universe on its next birthday and be sure to count the candles the bakery puts on it. St. CЯacke® 13:28, 22 August 2007 (CDT)

Hahahahahaha! I know they aren't the ultimate source, but WP is willing to assert "Current observations suggest that this is about 13.7 billion years, with an uncertainty of about +/-200 million years." The 10-20 bY range is waaay too wide from what we now know. human^{be in} 13:32, 22 August 2007 (CDT)

A gentleman never asks a universe its age.St. CЯacke® 13:45, 22 August 2007 (CDT)

Refined my googling - must use right words in future! Keep ^{me out of it!} 13:54, 22 August 2007 (CDT)

Haha, cool, thanks. We could, of course, always say "from 6,011 to 14,000,000,000 years old". But why bother? human^{be in} 13:58, 22 August 2007 (CDT)

H: was putting this in when we edit clashed In place of that ref. I haven't got the patience so would you care to? [http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/age.html The age of the Universe can also be estimated from a cosmological model based on the Hubble constant and the densities of matter and dark energy. This model-based age is currently 13.7 +/- 0.2 Gyr. But this Web page will only deal with actual age measurements, not estimates from cosmological models. The actual age measurements are consistent with the model-based age which increases our confidence in the Big Bang model.]

Done, sorry about the EC. human^{be in} 14:16, 22 August 2007 (CDT)

clarity

Not to be confused with the Big Bong theory. human^{be in} 18:00, 26 September 2007 (EDT)

title

it's not the "Big Bang", it's the "big bang".

Proposing to move to "big bang" (no extraneous caps) for linkable simplicity. I'll do the work, if mobocrified. human 00:13, 17 October 2007 (EDT)

Regarding God

Firstly, I'll point out for the sake of the general enlightenment that Occam's Razor is of absolutely no use in determining whether or not the Big Bang is evidence of a God, because either way you have to make an assumption: "Matter cannot exist indefinitely/appear out of nothing" (pro-God); or "Matter can exist indefinitely/appear out of nothing" (no-God). Occam's Razor, however, only tells us that we should minimize our use of assumptions, but nothing about which ones are correct, given an equal number.

Secondly, what's so particularly ironic about Lemaître being a priest? --AKjeldsen^Godspeed! 11:27, 25 October 2007 (EDT)

I'm of the opinion that any articles concerning science or theory should not have any reference or mention at all of god, religion, or creationists. IMO there should be a complete separation between science and religion excepting when the subject might occasionally require such an explanation. This, I think, is a prime example of when a reference to god or creationists should not be made on the main 'Page.' August 2014 (FN)

New Theory - Big Bang is actually a 'Big Bounce'

Just thought I'd comment on a theory I saw a while ago. It suggests the first part of this, about the question 'what came before the Big Bang' being nonsensical is wrong. It suggests that the Big Bang that created this universe is actually a rebound from a Big Crunch that destroyed a previous universe - so there WAS something here before. Check out the details here:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/07/070703-big-bounce.html

I'm not entirely sure of the best way to include this info in the page, so feel free to steal this source from me and edit appropriately, anyone. Zmidponk 19:12, 23 December 2007 (EST)

What Lemaitre said

Lemaitre didn't coin the term 'big bang,' he called it his 'Fireworks Theory.' Fred Hoyle did this because he found it preposterous that the universe began with a 'big' 'bang'. So this term began its life as a derogatory remark. Lemaitre did propose the idea that the universe had a beginning (his primeval atom), not because this followed from observation of red-shifted galaxies (Lemaitre's idea was posited earlier), but as an extension of the Einstein's general relativity equations, which didn't allow for a stable universe but only for an expanding or contracting universe. The observation of red-shift was actually the supportive experimental evidence of Lemaitres hypothesis. ^{— Unsigned, by: 134.58.253.57 / talk / contribs}

Give us some references & we'll put 'em in. Or you could do it yourself (but get a spellchecker first :) ) ^{— Unsigned, by: SusanG / talk / contribs}

He's right, you know. Still, a ref would be nice. human 12:33, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

I rather assumed he was but I'm busy so haven't had time to chase it up.   ^Contribs_Talk 12:35, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

From the big slut wikipedia "Ironically, the term 'Big Bang' was first coined by Fred Hoyle in a derisory statement seeking to belittle the credibility of the theory that he did not believe to be true" ref= BBC News - 'Big bang' astronomer dies. human 12:35, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

Rewrite

I'll take a stab at revising this article to present the empirical evidence for the theory. Any ideas about what I should keep / throw out? JSLeitch 02:30, 1 February 2009 (EST)

Just a house keeping, new comments go at the bottom. The simple question is what ever you want, nothing is gone forever, but when you start then get ready to negotiate. Rewriting it will attract other editors so you can discuss with them what you and they do and do not want in the article. - User $\scriptstyle (6\sum _{n=1}^{\infty }n^{-2})^{1/2}$ 02:51, 1 February 2009 (EST)

This is a wiki and "I expect this to be considerably revised ..." (first talk edit).  ^(Toast) _{and marmalade} 06:51, 1 February 2009 (EST)

Article getting messy, could use some care in structuring? ħuman 00:01, 8 February 2009 (EST)

Equivocation of "theory"?

There seems to be some possibly ambiguity of "theory". As I quote: "According to one version of the theory[...]" and "Another version of the theory[...]" presents some possibly ambiguity. Is the Big Band a scientific theory, or more of a hypothesis? Or is it, as a theory, very vague thusfar because it needs to be researched further?

I suggest a possible rewriting of these sentences to better differentiate. Minozake 21:06, 10 April 2009 (EDT)

Big Band is a form of jazz that was popular in the early 20th century. It wasn't as theoretical as some more modern jazz. ħuman 22:23, 10 April 2009 (EDT)

Julian Barbour

I must say I am a bit sceptical of this guy, his work history seems to mostly be in pop sci rather than actual science. - User $\scriptstyle (6\sum _{n=1}^{\infty }n^{-2})^{1/2}$ 22:38, 18 April 2009 (EDT)

Feel free to revert and copy here to discuss? Mega has a habit of not citing, although, of course, neither do most of us... ħuman 22:52, 18 April 2009 (EDT)

quantum cause

I read an article that said quantum effects cause the creation of matter/antimatter particles which then destroy each other as a routine in space, and that since the net energy of the universe was 0 , taling gravity to be a negative , that some very small event may have triggered the expansion before these particle could vanish. That seems to have a hole in terms of what did these particles appear IN unless a spacetime framework already existed. Does any of that sound familiar ? I will look for a source. Hamster (talk) 05:34, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I have the same idea and the same question. ħuman 07:16, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

No idea, but then neither has anyone really. Look at this for instance. As I understand it, before 1 Planck time, all bets are off & it's down to guesstimation wild theories. See also Hawking's 5(+) dimensional universe. What don't start aint got no precursor conditions. ^{I have just eaten} _& stilton^talk 10:17, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Point (my emphasis):

“”Before a time classified as a Planck time, 10-43 seconds, all of the four fundamental forces are presumed to have been unified into one force. All matter, energy, space and time are presumed to have exploded outward from the original singularity. Nothing is known of this period. It is not that we know a great deal about later periods either, it is just that we have no real coherent models of what might happen under such conditions. The electroweak unification has been supported by the discovery of the W and Z particles, and can be used as a platform for discussion of the next step, the Grand Unification Theory (GUT). The final unification has been called a "supergrand unification theory", and becoming more popular is the designation "theory of everything" (TOE). But "theories of everything" are separated by two great leaps beyond the experiments we could ever hope to do on the Earth.

—[1]

^{I have just eaten} _& stilton^talk 10:26, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I have always felt that the fundemental elements the make up our reality, the existence of the universe, are unknowable. There is the known, the unknown and the unknowable. Aceⁱ⁹ 11:14, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

So you're basically saying there are known knowns. These are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we know we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we don't know we don't know. Bondurant (talk) 11:20, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Very funny......But I think the proper truth of the matter can never be known because it just can't be perceived by us or our equipment. This is indeed a strange and disturbing universe and our perception veils it. We see what we are wired to see. Aceⁱ⁹ 11:23, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Having tried, and failed, in my own attempt at getting a PhD in the field of quantum gravity, I can personally attest to the conceptual difficulties involved in even a simple case, never mind the very beginning of the universe. I have nothing but admiration for those that attempt it, but I personally think it's a shortcut to insanity - if it's possible to understand it, once you do, nobody else will be able to understand you. Bondurant (talk) 11:32, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

considering the very concept is enough to turn your mind. Aceⁱ⁹ 11:40, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not so sure, Ace. If by perceive you mean see or detect, then you're probably right. But I don't see why there would be any reason physics and mathematics could not continue to be used to describe conditions that we can't visualise. They do it regularly with n-dimensional equations and so on. And what about some sort of human augmentation? "Wet-wiring" technology into the human brain that allows perception outside our natural physical capacity. And I don't mean simply detection - like allowing human eyes to see ultraviolet by representing it as a false colour to the brain. But allowing the brain to see ultraviolet as an additional perception. Step that up to more dimensions or the quantum universe or conditions at a singularity.

This is where YECers really piss me off. They attempt to limit God and Creation to little bite-sized chunks of dumbed-down inanity. If God does exist in roughly the form that Christians believe, then His Creation is going to be magnificent and extraordinarily difficult for us to understand. Not some physical enactment of human parables. At least the likes of Lemaitre understood this along with the many religious scientists today. YEC is an anachronistic throwback to a time when we had neither the tools nor the knowledge to understand deeper reality.

Sorry, went off topic there. Ajkgordon (talk) 14:21, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

"We see what we are wired to see" - while it is true we start off that way (and even using machines to go beyond it is just an extension, not an addition), using math we can get beyond it. Simplistic example: the wave/particle duality of particles. The reason, I think, that we have those two models is they are both based on macroscopic ideas, ie, essentially "things we are wired to see" (because we evolved to, since we needed to). Waves and "particles" are both things that physics was able to describe very well early on, since they are things any hardworking amateur can experiment with, and the maths are too bad. But the duality screams "there's something more fundamental going on that these are just manifestation of". Then look at something as weird as string theory (which makes quantum look like high school geometry) and realize it's not an "extrapolation" of anything macroscopic, really - the strings aren't strings, the membranes aren't membranes, heck, their vibrations might not even be vibrations. Those are just words tacked onto the ideas to avoid having to make up new words (like how all the quark properties have silly names to emphasize that they aren't like anything we know), and this work may very well lead to a huge breakthrough in understanding the universe for the four people alive who can understand it.

The whole dark matter/energy thing is interesting in that we have only evolved to perceive a few things - light waves in a narrow range, sound waves in a wider range, the pressure of physical objects, organic chemicals in the atmosphere, and a few basic chemical properties in our mouth. If there were some form of matter/energy which exhibited none of those properties, we'd have no idea of how to "look" for it. If that matter/energy simply isn't present on the surface of planets like ours, we'd never evolve a way of dealing with it. Makes me wonder about the "collapsed" dimensions in string theory and what they actually represent (if the theory has any bearing on reality, of course). ħuman 01:56, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

How the universe began

I'm pretty sure that the Big Bang theory or model doesn't describe how the universe began. Rather it describes how it came to be in its present state from a very small and dense thing that was very small and dense about 13.7 billion years ago. It doesn't say anything about the starting conditions of the universe. Am I right? Ajkgordon (talk) 19:03, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

The Big Bang is used to describe how the Universe came into existence as we know it but not its initial state. Aceⁱ⁹ 19:08, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

How it came into existence? Are you sure that's right? Surely all the BBT can do is (very simplified) extrapolate backwards using GR to a certain time where GR no longer works. So it only describes the evolution of the universe from that point onwards, not how it came into existence. Ajkgordon (talk) 19:18, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

What I mean is the Big Bang brought matter and time into existence. Before that, we don't know. Aceⁱ⁹ 19:24, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

No, again, I don't think that's right. The Big Bang model doesn't go that far. It can only go as far back as GR allows - before that (something like the Planck time or epoch) is outside the realm of the BBT at the moment because it relies on GR. GR breaks down when it comes up against quantum mechanics and we need a GUT.

Or something. Ajkgordon (talk) 19:38, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

We can't look that far back into the Big Bang (The LHC is trying to look that far in) but it was still the Big Bang that brought it into existence, where GR fits in is part of the Big Bang, just part we don't know. I think you are getting mixed up with the cause of the Big Bang. Aceⁱ⁹ 19:42, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Sounds about right, thanks. But I still take issue with the article's opening line's use of the phrase "how the universe began". Although I'm too ignorant to propose an alternative wording. Ajkgordon (talk) 20:07, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I think Ajkg is correct, and it's a very subtle point. We can run the model back to a very short time after the postulated singularity, but there are two things we can't do yet - get the model to work all the way back to "zero time", assuming it even exists, and explain or model how the singularity (if there was one) formed. As Ace says, one thing we want to use the LHC for is to better understand singularities or conditions very close to them. ħuman 20:33, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I've added links to the ScienceBlogs series which I find rather good. 20:48, 16 March 2010 (UTC) ^Contribs_Talk

The Big Bang is the start of our physical laws, even if we can't measure it with our model, it is still the start. But what started it is the question. Aceⁱ⁹ 20:51, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

El Presidente's rewrite

http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/index.php?title=Big_bang&curid=5637&diff=548960&oldid=548837

Although a lot of what looks like good stuff was added, some good stuff was deleted. It's really not good to make such wholesale changes all at once because it makes it hard to edit it to the "best stuff". If I revert to get back the stuff EP removed, we lose what they added. The other option involves lots of tedious copypasta work with two or three tabs open... Thoughts? ħuman 02:55, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Also the writing style, while often casually humorous, is also sloppy. It's going to take a shitload of edits to fix this mess. I'm verging on reverting and then slowly cleaning up the additions and pasting them in. Or not. ħuman 02:59, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for being too aggressive/sloppy (would have been more formal, but wanted to keep it from being dry). IMO, most of what I took out was pretty superfluous--like that general relativity section, for example. GR by itself implies a non-static universe, but isn't really evidence for the big bang per se. So, while factual, the section kind of stood out on its own without adding much to this particular article. Don't have incredibly strong feelings about that or any other change though.--El Presidente (talk) 03:38, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for popping in here. I particularly miss the section starting "Up until the early 20th century, it had been assumed by scientists that the universe as a whole was static and unchanging." Also, referring to the reader as "you" isn't very good writing. Also, "but if you're starting with a soup of electrons and protons" that use of "you're" just reads wrong. Don't get me wrong - I like what you added. It needs a bit of copyediting, which is no big deal really, but you also deleted a bunch of stuff (like "Ratios of chemical elements") that was good and it's hard to tell from one giant diff if the good stuff has been preserved elsewhere. Can you resurrect the stuff you deleted at least please? I don't mind copyediting what you added at all, but in future deletions ideally should be single standalone edits. Lachaim! ħuman 03:50, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I put back the intro to the Hubble paragraph. Other than that (and the GR stuff), I think that the rest of the "where'd it go?" information is actually incorporated into the newer stuff, but phrased differently (also possibly reorganized). I also did a few drive-by edits to try to help readability, but have a look-see and check my mopping skills.--El Presidente (talk) 05:11, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, you made the article a lot better, and I appreciate you're re-adding some stuff, I'll run through it over the next day or two. Again, thanks. ħuman 06:32, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I made a bunch of small edits. Thanks for helping and playing in the wiki-way. Feel free to overview my "corrections". ħuman 09:32, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Just one question

In the "So what happens next?" section, are point 2 and 3 capable of being mutually exclusive? In other words, are you saying that it can expand and stop to a point that gravity won't pull it back into a singularity? I'm just wondering. I have practically no knowledge of physics and just genuinely curious about this. -Rivius (talk) 05:03, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

"Big Bang is Wrong" documentary

Apparently, Expelled has a little brother, and his name is "Universe - the Cosmology Quest." It was brought to my attention by a YouTuber, who left me the following comment:

"When it comes to cosmology if you go against the big bang theorists, as a professor you'll probably never get tenure—you might even lose your job. If you can please check out the 'Big bang never happened' on YouTube. It seems the pro-bangers can't tolerate paradigm shifts."

Thought it might be interesting; maybe we should give it it's own article. --Stilldeciding (talk) 01:28, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely. Run with it! ħuman 02:06, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Will do! I'll get right on it once I finish watching it. --Stilldeciding (talk) 18:05, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree! I remember seeing some scientist, with articles, present some proof - lemme go get it, here: https://lppfusion.com/science/cosmic-connection/plasma-cosmology/the-growing-case-against-the-big-bang/ It seemed pretty solid, but having someone who knows what they're doing look at it would be nice.^{— Unsigned, by: 196.53.0.240 / talk}

North of the North Pole

Isn't that the moon?

GR in galactic dynamics

The article says that "...when talking about how things interact on galactic...scales, we need to use general relativity." I don't think this is true. According to this book, general relativistic corrections are not needed on galactic scales. Anybody have a reference that says that GR corrections are important in galactic dynamics? --Andy Frankinson (talk) 19:17, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Rewrite

I was thinking of rewriting this article. I'd like to talk in detail about the theoretical model (i.e., inflation, nucleosynthesis, recombination, and galaxy and large scale structure formation) and then about the evidence supporting it. Maybe it would be better to split it into two pages (one for the details of the theory, and another for the evidence supporting it)? (Of course, I'd like to have a bit on the history, which the current page does quite nicely, so I think there's no need to change that.) Thoughts? --Andy^{not Schlafly} 00:23, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Go for it (keeping in mind we are not a technical tome or wikipedia) Aceⁱ⁹ 04:13, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Ok then! Thanks! --Andy^{not Schlafly} 04:14, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

How's it look now? --Andy^{not Schlafly} 00:24, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

I think the math markup is case-sensitive for Greek letters, in that <math>\gamma</math> gives $\gamma$, but <math>\Gamma</math> gives $\Gamma$.

I don't know how to get a majuscule gamma in math markup. There is one available in the blivet box below the edit window, and it looks like this: Γ, with the little one looking like γ.

In the density relations, the "much greater than" and "much less than" signs might be causing problems, but I dunno. As you've probably seen, I kluged in some of those blivets. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 00:53, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Huh, that's weird. But yeah, thanks for your help! --Andy^{not Schlafly} 11:34, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Theory

The opening paragraph uses "theory" several times. If we are going to be scientific shouldn't that be "hypothesis"?--Weirdstuff (talk) 12:30, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

What makes you think the big bang is merely a hypothesis? --Andy^{not Schlafly} 20:23, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm not saying it's "merely" an hypothesis, simply that it is one of many. It is one possible explanation of the origin of the universe. Currently it is the favoured hypothesis and may well be corect. But even the first paragraph speaks about an alternative multiverse explanation. Steady state is not wholly dead, others speculate about colliding | branes. And that's just from memory. I could probably find others. As the jury is still sort of out they need to be regarded as competing hypothesis with the bag bang as the favourite.--Weirdstuff (talk) 20:13, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

I think there is sufficient evidence for the Big Bang to be counted as a theory and not merely a hypothesis. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 20:36, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, steady state is dead. A ΛCDM cosmology is really the only model that explains all the data. --Andy^{not Schlafly} 21:01, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Yet the article says: "Another version of the theory is that a "multiverse" existed before our universe began". And later: "Chaotic inflation theory, or bubble universe theory, is an alternative model of inflation. Developed by physicist Andrei Linde and others in 1986, it solves a problem of the inflation theory, namely how to end the inflationary period."

Is the word "theory" really being used consistently here? Shouldn't at least some of these be "hypothesis"? --Weirdstuff (talk) 12:11, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Inflation is a standard part of the Big Bang model. We just don't know exactly how it happened. Hence, the many versions of inflation. So, while we can be confident that the big bang model and inflation are accurate, we don't know exactly how inflation happened. --Andy^{not Schlafly} 12:51, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Wrong, inflation can be explained by Plasma cosmology. If the big bang model is accurate, how did superclusters that take hundreds of billions of years to form come to exist in our universe? 97.70.1.221 (talk) 17:23, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Evidence for gravitational waves

I added the section below.

Scientists claim they have found evidence that gravitational waves involved in the inflation have left their imprint on the microwave background radiation. This ratiation permeates the universe and that is believed to come from the big bang. Peer review will be needed before there can be any scientific consensus about these new findings.

The references are good and I think it should stay. Proxima Centauri (talk) 06:20, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

A question for creationists

If the Big bang theory goes against God then why was the best evidence for the Big bang (the cosmic background radiation predicted by the theory) discovered by accident? Hmm, seems like God wanted the Big bang theory to be developed.--Cmbisme (talk) 16:36, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Relics

In addition to magnetic monopoles, there are also cosmic strings and domain walls predicted to exist. As far as I know, there's no woo or pseudoscience around dealing with those, probably because they're too far off everyday experience. In my opinion it wouldn't make much sense to write articles about them like magnetic monopole, but explaining what they are in the relic problem is a bit too much for this article. Should they be mentioned?

btw, cosmic strings are 1D objects (as opposed to the 0D magnetic monopole) which have a "wedge" of space time cut out, i.e. you don't need to go 360 degrees to run once around them, but only 360-α. Therefore, they act like gravitational lenses along their length and could, in theory, be observed by this effect. Domain walls are 2D surfaces between regions where the spontaneous symmetry breaking of a quantum field theory happened differently. For a colorful example, just consider a domain where only matter survived the very early universe (like the universe we know), and a domain where only antimatter survived, and then consider the regions colliding --Imaginative username (talk) 21:59, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

BoNversation

Taken from Talk:Water fluoridation.

"Big Bang Denialist? Have you no shame? Do you know anything about the history of the Big Bang or cosmology? Are you aware that the Big Bang is almost totally disconnected from observation and relies on dark matter - which is claimed to be 80+% of the universe yet has never been proven to exist (they say it exists because without it their equations would not work). This is what scientists who have alternate theories say, it's not crackpot stuff. Whether their theories are correct is another question, but the holes in the Big Bang are blatant." - 97.70.1.221 (talk · contribs · block  · rights  · rename)

For me, that's the first time I've heard an argument that says that it is "almost totally disconnected from observation and relies on dark matter". The evidence is pretty clear for support of a Big Bang... for now (as a theory is only as good as its evidence). It isn't perfect, but it doesn't lend credence to other proposed mechanisms, which also have their problems, if not much more problems lying against evidence. Dark matter is a nasty thing mathematics-wise, but I think the problem is that galaxies are more massive than predicted than predicted, so it doesn't seem to contradict Big Bang either way. Even if dark matter doesn't exist and it's our equations and calculations that are messed up (which does have some people proposing that), it doesn't make the Big Bang theory wrong, just needs to be amended. Like most knowledge that challenges the status quo. --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 01:31, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

For me, that's the first time I've heard an argument that says that it is "almost totally disconnected from observation and relies on dark matter". |The evidence is pretty clear for support of a Big Bang

All of those pieces of evidence are better explained by plasma cosmology (and I can show you if you care). Big Bangers are disconnected from observation - they manipulate equations and then wait for others to confirm their numbers - the confirmations almost never come and often must be forced by the Big Bangers. There is no evidence that dark matter exists - there are a few things scientists point to that they say indicate dark matter, but it's never been observed and the things they point to can be explained by other phenomena.

"Dark matter is a nasty thing mathematics-wise, but I think the problem is that galaxies are more massive..."

Yes, superclusters would take hundreds of billions of years to form - the Big Bang says the universe is 13 or 14 billion years old. This is not possible.

"Even if dark matter doesn't exist and it's our equations and calculations that are messed up (which does have some people proposing that), it doesn't make the Big Bang theory wrong"

Hahahahaha, what? So if all the equations around the Big Bang are wrong - the theory might still be right? Why assume it's right? Just because it's currently accepted theory? Yes, maybe doctors who thought humors and biles were the inner working of man had some equations wrong, but that doesn't mean their theory is wrong!

Plasma cosmology fits the data much better. Most scientist look at theoretical and particle physicists as odd since they use deductive and not inductive reasoning - some deduction is necessary for science, but only after you've observed and gathered data. Big Bangers invent particles and things like dark matter and energy so their equations work - they do not base the existence of these things off observation - they then go try to observe the necessary parts of their equation. 97.70.1.221 (talk) 17:19, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Debate

See above if you want the short version.97.70.1.221 (talk) 01:08, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Oh yes, we're all very eager to see your alternative explanation for the apparent anisotropy of observed cosmic background radiation. I'm sure an qualified unhinged lunatic like yourself(let's be honest: you're just trying to troll us without realizing we're here because we like dumb arguments), has almost certainly put together a qualified mathematical explanation for your beliefs. So, by all means, share with us your fundamental equations that explain the data. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 21:23, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

"Oh yes, we're all very eager to see your alternative explanation for the apparent anisotropy of observed cosmic background radiation"

Well, get ready to move the goalposts. First, did you look up any alternate explanations? Can you name one? Or no, you know the big bang is right, so you never looked? Well, let's look:

I'll be quoting a plasma cosmologist here:

"How can the microwave radiation be scattered so as to become smooth and isotropic , as observed? ... High energy electrons spiraling around magnetic field lines within filaments, like any accelerated particles, generates synchroton radiation - in this case of radio frequencies. And Kirchoff's law, a fundamental law of radiation, states that any object emitting radiation of a given frequency is able to absorb the same frequency. Thus, if electrons in the filaments absorb photons from the background and then reradiate them in another random direction, they will in effect scatter the radiation into a smooth isotropic bath just as fog droplets scatter into a featureless gray."

"[Peratt] calculated the radiation of his simulated scenario and found that the galactic filament produces the same amount of microwave radiation as the microwave background."

"The only requirements for smoothing the background radiation was lots of small filaments, each with a strong magnetic field - a good description of the jets emerging from galactic nuclei. It seems that every galaxy has these filaments, as my own theory indicates and as was confirmed by observation. On average a photon of background radiation would encounter these filaments every few million years and be scattered. After several billion years isotropic would be complete. So the microwave background is not the echo of the big bang, it is the diffuse glow from a fog of plasma filaments, the hum from the cosmic power grid."

"Moreover this theory had testable implications. [skipping a little to get to the point] ... Radio sources such as galaxies would be observable only through gaps in the filament thicket. Thus radio emissions from these sources would grow sparser with the distance of the source. This directly contradicts the conventional assumption that intergalactic space is completely transparent to radio waves. However, astronomers had observed that as one looks farther out into space, the number of radio sources increases much more slowly than the number of optical sources, and thus the ratio of radio-bright to optically-bright sources decreases sharply. ... Cosmologists have attributed this to some unknown mysterious process that somehow caused the early distant quasars to be less efficient at producing radio radiation, even though their optical and x-ray radiation is no different than that from present-day nearby quasars. My model, however, provides the simpler explanation that the radio sources are there, but we can't observe them because their radiation is absorbed by intervening thickets of filament."

"*There may well be other mechanisms that help to smooth the microwaves background. N. Wickramasinghe and others proposed that tiny iron whiskers a millimeter long but only a millionth of a centimeter across could strongly absorb and scatter radio waves and microwaves. Such whiskers may be produced in supernova explosions and widely dispersed in intergalactic space."

Hm... seems like there is an alternative explanation.

Now I have a question, how did superclusters that take hundreds of billions of years to form come to exist in our universe, if the universe is 13 or 14 billion years old as Big Bangers claim?

I'm not even remotely trolling. You're proud of your ignorance because you worship science like a religion. Science is clearly the only method to get empirical truth, but it isn't perfect unchanging knowledge. When the data refutes something (like Big Bang), you must move on. Holding onto outdated science makes science appear false and gives room to pseudoscience people to maneuver. You think you're fighting against bullshit science, but you actually promote it with your actions. Must be frustrating.97.70.1.221 (talk) 22:53, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Believe it or not, I've read a great deal by Eric Lerner and what you said here provided no meaningful answer to the question posed. I'd say "thanks for playing" or some other cliche internet reply, but I just have nothing sincere contempt for you after that. You've failed so absolutely to provide any sort of actual mathematical prediction that also explains the data, you've just googled physicists you think agree with you based on the title of their book and then mindlessly copied and pasted mildly related excerpts. You want respect for your bullshit? Earn it. Plasma cosmology, while not explicitly wrong, seriously fails to present predictions that differ from big bang cosmology, and mostly from not trying. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 03:27, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

"what you said here provided no meaningful answer to the question posed."

Sorry misread your question. Here's the answer to your question:

"Recent measurements of the anisotropy of the CBR by the WMAP spacecraft have been claimed to be a major confirmation of the Big Bang theory. Yet on examination these claims of an excellent fit of theory and observation are dubious. First of all, the curve that was fitted to the data had seven adjustable parameters, the majority of which could not be checked by other observations[40]. Fitting a body of data with an arbitrarily large number of free parameters is not difficult and can be done independently of the validity of any underlying theory. Indeed, even with seven free parameters, the fit was not statistically good, with the probability that the curve actually fits the data being under 5%, a rejection at the 2 s level. Significantly ,even with seven freely adjustable parameters, the model greatly overestimated the anisotropy on the largest angular scales. In addition, the Big Bang model's prediction for the angular correlation function did not at all resemble the WMAP data. It is therefore difficult to view this new data set as a confirmation of the Big Bang theory of the CBR."

"The plasma alternative views the energy for the CBR as provided by the radiation released by early generations of stars in the course of producing the observed 4He. The energy is thermalized and isotropized by a thicket of dense, magnetically confined plasma filaments that pervade the intergalactic medium. While this model has not been developed to the point of making detailed predictions of the angular spectrum of the CBR anisotropy, it has accurately matched the spectrum of the CBR using the best-quality data set from COBE[27]. This fit, it should be noted, involved only three free pamenters and achieved a probability of 85%."

"Since this theory hypotheses filaments that efficiently scatter radiation longer than about 100 microns, it predicts that radiation longer than this from distant sources will be absorbed, or to be more precise scattered, and thus will decrease more rapidly with distance than radiation shorter than 100 microns. Such an absorption was demonstrated by comparing radio and far-infrared radiation from galaxies at various distances--the more distant, the greater the absorption effect[5,7]."

"Plasma cosmology, while not explicitly wrong, seriously fails to present predictions that differ from big bang cosmology, and mostly from not trying."

What the hell does this mean? Plasma cosmology has many predictions that can be verified, the Big Bang has repeatedly made predictions that turned out to be false. There are far far far bigger holes in Big Bang then plasma cosmology. The formation of superclusters, galaxies, stars and planets is very similar to how plasma acts in the lab. Big Bangers are still messing about with unprovable concepts and imagined particles. And I did not just google Lerner, I quoted from my copy of his book. 97.70.1.221 (talk) 03:40, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Faster-than-light expansion

The handling of the concept of a faster-than-light expansion in this article is based on a misconception. In an expanding universe and given a speed, there is always a pair of points receding from each other at that speed. In particular, given a rate of expansion, there is a distance, the Hubble radius, at which two points move at the speed of light relative to each other.

A correct characterization of cosmic inflation is that of a stage of accelerated expansion. Distinguishing it from the current accelerated expansion of the Universe is the energy density associated to the scalar field that causes inflation, the inflaton.

There is also mention of the size of the Universe being equal to the size of the Solar System. Because of simplicity, the Universe is most commonly assumed to be infinite. Maybe it refers to the size of the observable universe? Slow Roll (talk) 05:21, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Nomination for silver status

I hereby nominate this article as a candidate for the silver rating. From my POV the article more than merits being placed into the silver rated category of articles, but YMMV of course. — Oxyaena ^{Poke me} 21:58, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

The cause of the Big Bang

As I mention it in a discussion in the Saloon Bar where it will disappear into the archives:

The cause of 'our' Big Bang was the hot air generated in the previous multiverse by discussions about how 'their' Big Bang was generated. Anna Livia (talk) 09:47, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

SOMEONE

SOMEONE, someone more smart than me, check out this article about the scientific evidence and observations against the big bang's predictions. https://lppfusion.com/science/cosmic-connection/plasma-cosmology/the-growing-case-against-the-big-bang/ ^{— Unsigned, by: 185.73.65.98 / talk / contribs}