Open main menu
Big Bang is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on February 23, 2005.
Article milestones
January 31, 2005Peer reviewReviewed
February 4, 2005Featured article candidatePromoted
February 23, 2005Today's featured articleMain Page
August 22, 2005Featured article reviewKept
May 31, 2007Featured article reviewKept
Current status: Featured article
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. If you wish to discuss or debate the validity of the Big Bang, please do so at


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 confusing editsEdit

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" [1] 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

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: — Preceding unsigned comment added by (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'.[1][2] Universe is almost flat (zero balance of energy), so no energy had to be created[3][4] 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 (talkcontribs) 20:32, 21 July 2019 (UTC)


  1. ^ "No Big Bang? Quantum equation predicts universe has no beginning". Retrieved 26 April 2017.
  2. ^ "The Beginning of TIme". Stephen Hawking. Retrieved 26 April 2017.
  3. ^ "A Universe from Nothing". Astronomical Society of the Pacific. Retrieved 10 March 2010. by Alexei V. Filippenko and Jay M. Pasachoff
  4. ^ "A Universe From Nothing lecture by Lawrence Krauss at AAI". 2009. Retrieved 17 October 2011.
Return to "Big Bang" page.