Talk:Big Bang
 | IMPORTANT: This is not the place to discuss how you think the universe began, or to discuss whether or not the Big Bang model is correct. This page is for discussing improvements to the article. The article is about the Big Bang model, with content based on information presented in peer-reviewed scientific literature about it or other appropriate sources. See Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. |
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Big Bang article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25Auto-archiving period: 30 days  |
 | Big Bang is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on February 23, 2005. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | This  level-3 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
Suggestion for addition of link edit
Hello, I noticed the first mention of the "FLRW model" does not link to an existing Wikipedia article that further expands on the first use of this acronym, and I believe that it would be a helpful addition for context. OverwhelmingOdds (talk) 00:01, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
Needs more sources edit
Every online source I have looked at says there's a lot of evidence disproving the other theories of the beginning of the universe or existence in totality. However, the Wikipedia article mentions only one, a book from 1996. Where are the rest of the sources? Galactiger (talk) 20:45, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
- I've added a link to 'non-standard cosmology' in the 'See also' section. Praemonitus (talk) 01:03, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
Wiki Education assignment: English Composition 1102 085 edit
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 4 March 2024 and 2 May 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jgleana (article contribs).
— Assignment last updated by Jgleana (talk) 03:45, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
The article's intro is mistaken twice edit
(1) A theory and one of its elements, are quite different things. The cosmos' expansion, the Big Bang momemt, tP etc. are just elements of the theory !!!!! (2) The first formulations of the Big Bang Theory were written already in 1922 by Alexander Friedmann. based upon his own equations. So currently the article is also wrong regarding the first main step of the theory.
Therefore I suggest the following intro :
According to contemporary science, The Big Bang is the first moment of the universe.
Its very existence, characteristics and the physical and cosmological processes that followed, are the
main elements of a theory named The Big Bang Theory.
Based on his own Friedmann equations,
Alexander Friedmann contributed in 1922 the origin of the theory ...... יוסי ברנע בן פנינה (talk) 01:21, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
- This makes sense to me. Ymblanter (talk) 12:37, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
- Both Alexander Friedmann and George Lemaître proposed an expanding metric for the universe based on solutions to Einstein's theory of General Relativity. In 1928, Lemaître suggested that the universe may have originated at a single point -- a "primeval atom". Note that Hoyle's 1948 steady-state model allowed for an expanding universe with no big bang. Hence, an expanding universe did not necessarily imply a big bang. I think that's why Lemaître gets credited. Praemonitus (talk) 13:38, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
- I disagree on point (1). The "big bang" as an event does not even have a consistent definition within scientific discourse. It is better for the article's opening to describe the (well defined) theory instead of attempting to describe the (ill defined) event. Aseyhe (talk) 20:26, 6 May 2024 (UTC)