|Daily article pageviews
|This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, labor, traveled), and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.|
| This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
|WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.This article is within the scope of |
||This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale.|
||This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.|
|WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles that are spoken on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.This article is within the scope of |
|This talk page is automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. Any threads with no replies in 1 month may be automatically moved. Sections without timestamps are not archived.|
Causality Big BangEdit
As the Universe accelerates, after some period loses all innate causal connection among its components and reBig Bangs.
just another theory - we should mention all theories — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:587:4102:8000:9598:4471:8BEA:5385 (talk) 16:35, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
User:Oldstone James firstly changed content from "Current conception of the Big Bang model assumes the existence of energy, time, and space, and does not comment about their origin or the cause of the dense and high temperature initial state of the universe" to "Current conception of the Big Bang model assumes the existence of energy as well as currently understood laws of physics and does not comment about their origin or the cause of the dense and high temperature initial state of the universe." which made no sense, and then changed it to "Current conception of the Big Bang model assumes the existence of energy as well as the existence of currently understood laws of physics about their origin or the cause of the dense and high temperature initial state of the universe" which also made no sense.
Then it was been changed to "assumes the existence of energy and does not comment about their origin" to what is "their" referring to now? I asked. Please gain consensus here for any further changes. Theroadislong (talk) 18:44, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
- Please stop edit warring to add confusing content NOT supported by the source, the source clearly states "The Big Bang scenario simply assumes that space, time, and energy already existed"  Theroadislong (talk) 20:10, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
Model vs TheoryEdit
Since this is a scientific page, it should follow scientific terminology.
The word "theory" is very specific in the field of science. I recommend reading https://curiosity.com/topics/whats-the-difference-between-a-fact-a-hypothesis-a-theory-and-a-law-in-science-curiosity/.
The Big Bang has withstood multiple tests and evidence has been provided for it to have happened. In such a situation, it should not be called a theory.
Even Britannica shows this: https://www.britannica.com/science/big-bang-model. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 12:54, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
- It's an interesting alternative title. However, there's no problem with theory, as long as it means scientific theory. —PaleoNeonate – 12:57, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
- Agree with the reply - in the scientific sense, the term “theory” tends to imply that the intention is to create a set of principles that can be applied to large-scale and generalised Studies, whereas a “model” is a set of principles that would be used to illustrate more specific and narrowly-defined phenomena. Hence, Atomic theory has typically made use of differing models, such as the Plum Pudding Model to demonstrate various phenomena and viewpoints within the larger theory. SmallMossie (talk) 23:42, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
Misquotation of sourceEdit
The part of the Wright article that is currently cited in note 9 does not say that the Big Bang Theory explains Hubble’s Law, as the wiki article currently states in the opening paragraph. The cited reference states that the expansion of the universe is evidence of the Big Bang.
SmallMossie (talk) 21:27, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
- Theories are often circular. The precession of the perihelion of Mercury is explained by GR, but it is also evidence for GR. jps (talk) 21:29, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
There is no informations about the hipothetical cause of the Big Bang. I created this subsection and I want to put this to 'speculations' section, but my changes were reverted many times. Please tell me what's wrong with it and what i am supposed to change. Text:
Physics may conclude that time did not exist before 'Big Bang', but 'started' with the Big Bang, so there might be no 'beginning' or 'before'. Universe is almost flat (zero balance of energy), so no energy had to be created
and probably Quantum fluctuations (or other laws of physics) 'after' (or 'instantly', because there was no time) the eternal, unchanging 'era' before the time could then randomly create the conditions for matter to occur.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Szymioza (talk • contribs) 20:32, 21 July 2019 (UTC)