Orangemarlin (talk | contribs) →Lemaitre's position: Nope. |
Michael C Price (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 207: | Line 207: | ||
::::What is the relevance of Lemaitre's being a priest to the Big Bang theory? [[User:FergusM1970|FergusM1970]] ([[User talk:FergusM1970|talk]]) 18:34, 30 May 2011 (UTC) |
::::What is the relevance of Lemaitre's being a priest to the Big Bang theory? [[User:FergusM1970|FergusM1970]] ([[User talk:FergusM1970|talk]]) 18:34, 30 May 2011 (UTC) |
||
:::::It's relevant to the development and acceptance of the big bang theory. Atheists originally rejected the concept, believing it pointed to the existence of a God. The big bang theory itself has nothing to say about religion. However, social commentary on it and personal perspectives about it lean heavily on theistic issues.[[User:Farsight001|Farsight001]] ([[User talk:Farsight001|talk]]) 21:03, 30 May 2011 (UTC) |
:::::It's relevant to the development and acceptance of the big bang theory. Atheists originally rejected the concept, believing it pointed to the existence of a God. The big bang theory itself has nothing to say about religion. However, social commentary on it and personal perspectives about it lean heavily on theistic issues.[[User:Farsight001|Farsight001]] ([[User talk:Farsight001|talk]]) 21:03, 30 May 2011 (UTC) |
||
:::::Thanks Farsight001. Note that FergusM1970 turned the implication around, to render it nonsensical. Would be readers be interested in this? Apparently they are, since sources outside WP mention this a lot. We just reflect that interest here. -- cheers, [[User:Michael C Price|Michael C. Price]] <sup>[[User talk:Michael C Price|talk]]</sup> 21:21, 30 May 2011 (UTC) |
|||
{{od}}I'm reverting the descriptive of being a priest. Totally irrelevant. [[User:Orangemarlin|<font color="orange">'''Orange'''</font><font color="teal">'''Marlin'''</font>]] <small><sup>[[User talk:Orangemarlin|Talk•]] [[Special:Contributions/Orangemarlin|Contributions]]</sup></small> 21:18, 30 May 2011 (UTC) |
{{od}}I'm reverting the descriptive of being a priest. Totally irrelevant. [[User:Orangemarlin|<font color="orange">'''Orange'''</font><font color="teal">'''Marlin'''</font>]] <small><sup>[[User talk:Orangemarlin|Talk•]] [[Special:Contributions/Orangemarlin|Contributions]]</sup></small> 21:18, 30 May 2011 (UTC) |
||
:Yes, it is to be expected that OM would see things in a totally black-and-white fashion. -- cheers, [[User:Michael C Price|Michael C. Price]] <sup>[[User talk:Michael C Price|talk]]</sup> 21:21, 30 May 2011 (UTC) |
Revision as of 21:21, 30 May 2011
![]() | 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. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Presented as fact, not as a theory
This thread went inactive in 2010. Please start a new thread instead of adding to this one. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
I may be wrong, and correct me if so, but it seems to me that while the article states in a few places that it is a theory, the overall attitude of the article is that the Big Bang theory is scientific fact. This is incorrect; while there is evidence for the theory, it has not been conclusively proven, and I think the article should possibly be changed to reflect. Gorillazx1 (talk) 21:58, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
In scientific parlance, a "theory" is considered to be a "fact" (ie, it has been proven to conform with empirical evidence). What I'd like to know is, why on Earth has this article been (re)named "Big Bang", rather than "Big Bang theory"? nagualdesign (talk) 16:45, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
But the Big Bang theory is just that. A theory. Doesn't matter if science has a way of making it seem a fact, it's still just a THEORY and is still debated to this day. Plus there are holes everywhere. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.142.233.4 (talk) 10:06, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
Of course, gravity is "just a theory" too. After all, everything we use to explain what we see is "just a theory". In the gravity example, the only scientific fact of gravity is that objects move towards each other. Anything beyond that, however obvious it may seem, is "just a theory". With all the evidence we have for the big bang theory, as long as it doesn't actually say that it is scientific fact, what it says is within the definition of a theory. The article, after all is describing the theory, and all statements made in the article are describing the theory, and it is clearly stated that it is the theory that is being described. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.80.187.148 (talk) 19:02, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
|
Hoyle
The reference to Hoyle should be linked to the Fred Hoyle page.
Requested move
- The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the move request was: not moved. Consensus is that the current title is better. Dpmuk (talk) 13:05, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
}}
Big Bang → Big Bang theory — With some apprehension I'm rerequesting this move. The previous request ended in no consensus. However, I strongly feel that Big Bang theory is a more suitable name for this article. My primary reason for this, is that the subject is that main subject of this article is the "Big Bang theory". That is, the idea (well supported by observation)that the evolution of the universe is well described by an expanding FLRW metric, in particular the universe is (to good approximation) homogeneous and isotropic, and its matter content is well approximated (at cosmological scales) by a multi-component perfect fluid.
The name of this theory historical precedes the naming of an event as "the Big Bang". In fact, there is no general consensus as to what event should be referred to as "the Big Bang". The current naming of this article as Big Bang brings this article in an awkward position of having to define "the Big Bang" in the first sentence, when no conclusive definition exists in the literature. No such problem occurs when the article is named Big Bang theory.
If this article continues to be called big bang, then it needs to be substantially rewritten, since at the moment it does not adequately address what is meant by the term "big bang".TR 09:49, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Rebuttal of previous objections
I'll respond to some previous objections raised: (paraphrasing them concisely, feel free disagree with my summary)
- The article on evolution is called evolution not Theory of evolution.
- Well the article on "quantum field theory" is called quantum field theory not quantum field and the article on "string theory" is called string theory not string. The reason is that those article are (like this one) about the theories rather than the characteristic objects for which the theories are named.TR 09:49, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
- per WP:UCN
- I've seen no evidence that the use of "Big Bang" is more came than "Big Bang theory" to describe this theory. The use of the phrase "Big Bang theory" in the title of a popular sitcom, actually has made the phrase "Big Bang theory" slightly more common on the internet than the phrase "Big Bang" not followed by "theory". (At least according to google, "Big Bang theory" has about 53 million hits, while "big bang" has about 104 million hits, implying that it used only 51 million times without being followed by theory. For whatever thats worth.) TR 09:49, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
- You do really need to put the quotes into the google search, "big bang" gave me 63 million hits "big bang theory" 27 million hits. Without the quotes it can find the words in different order or scattered around a page or missing one word. Dmcq (talk) 15:24, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
- I know that. Which is why that is exactly what I did. Google results can vary for other reasons. Such as location (especially since google deployed it anti content farm measures on the US servers bot not in the rest of the world) or even the order in which you do searches. Anyway within the (obviously big) error margins of a crude google test, the result is the same "big bang theory" accounts for half of the "big bang" hits.TR 07:07, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
- You do really need to put the quotes into the google search, "big bang" gave me 63 million hits "big bang theory" 27 million hits. Without the quotes it can find the words in different order or scattered around a page or missing one word. Dmcq (talk) 15:24, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
- That is strange. When I tried google with co.uk it gave 39 million for 'Big Bang Theory' and the .com gave 27 million. It must be saying it is more popular in the UK than America! Anyway there's no reason to call this article the same as a sitcom just because it has blighted over half the search results. Dmcq (talk) 08:36, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
- Calling the article big bang theory, suggests that the idea is in doubt.
Discussion
I have no problem with this article being renamed. This article deals with the progression of time/energy/matter since the earliest instant, rather than the instant itself. One would not describe a simple series of numbers, for example, by attempting to describe the nature of "zero", although it could be argued that zero is a 'start' point. The Big Bang is a hypothetical concept which is beyond our ken to explain or imagine but the theory of how the universe has progressed since is better described , and it is that which this article is addressing. Support renaming as Big Bang theory. Careful With That Axe, Eugene Hello... 10:06, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose. The "theory" is really quite superflouous. Stickee (talk) 10:36, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose, TR's arguments make sense, but they also are the same argument as before, and IMO they do not beat the arguments made to keep this article at this location (see previous move requests). Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 10:55, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
- And what arguments would that be? And why aren't they refuted by the rebuttal above? Could you also point to a move discussion that end in consensus for keeping the article at "Big Bang"?TR 11:09, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
- Plowing through the last 5 years of discussion has produced no such consensus.TR 11:27, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
- I did not say they produced consensus one way or the other (although I do recall the last one being unanimous in opposition), I said they failed to convince me to believe that it was a good idea to move the article to "Big Bang theory". Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 11:40, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
- Could you please elucidate what argument for keeping this article at "Big Bang" you find so convincing? None of the arguments made at the previous discussion really made sense to me. Only the UCN argument made some sense, but that was lacking in evidence that the name "Big Bang" is indeed more common than "Big Bang theory".
- Note, that I'm not trying to be argumentative here. Instead, I'm trying to spark a proper discussion, such that proper consensus can be reached, eitherway.TR 12:13, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
- I did not say they produced consensus one way or the other (although I do recall the last one being unanimous in opposition), I said they failed to convince me to believe that it was a good idea to move the article to "Big Bang theory". Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 11:40, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
- Plowing through the last 5 years of discussion has produced no such consensus.TR 11:27, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
- And what arguments would that be? And why aren't they refuted by the rebuttal above? Could you also point to a move discussion that end in consensus for keeping the article at "Big Bang"?TR 11:09, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose. Why would the addition of "theory" make an explanation of "Big Bang" redundant. If the theory does not describe this primordial "explosion" it is OR to add it to the article. --Fama Clamosa (talk) 11:22, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
- This is a common misconception. The "Big Bang theory" is not the "theory of the Big Bang". Rather it is a theory of the evolution of the universe, one of the implications of which is that the universe must have started in a hot rapidly expanding state, which became the feature for which the theory was named. It was however never precisely clear what feature of the theory was to be called the Big Bang (the initial singularity? the rapidly expanding phase that followed it? when that it end?), nor was this ever a truly relevant question, since "big bang theory" was just a name, to distinguish it from competing theories (at the time) like steady-state.TR 11:33, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
- Misconception or not: this is a theory that is known as "Big Bang". Wikipedia should not add "theory" to all articles on scientific theories. The article is addressing this "theory"/"model" issue in the opening sentence. If there is a discussion in the scientific community regarding the importance of adding "theory" to "Big Bang", then bring us those references. And again, why would adding "theory" to the article name make it more clear that the "cosmic explosion" is just hypothetical. --Fama Clamosa (talk) 12:05, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
- 1) Could you provide a source for the claim that this theory is known as "Big Bang". (All sources I see simply talk of the "big bang theory" or "big bang model".)
- 2) I'm not arguing that Wikipedia, should add theory to all articles on scientific theories. However, it is appropriate when that is the common name of the theory. You however seem to be arguing that we should always drop the theory. Would you propose that we move Steady State theory to steady state, quantum field theory to quantum field and string theory to string?
- 3) Adding "theory" to the title would not make it more clear that the "cosmic explosion" is just hypothetical. Nor is that intention of this request. Nor do I understand how you inferred that that was the intention.
- 4) In this specific case, calling the article Big Bang theory, avoids having to say what is meant by "the Big Bang" in the opening sentence. The current opening sentence is problematic, because it represents a particular POV on what should be called "the Big Bang".TR 12:27, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
- Misconception or not: this is a theory that is known as "Big Bang". Wikipedia should not add "theory" to all articles on scientific theories. The article is addressing this "theory"/"model" issue in the opening sentence. If there is a discussion in the scientific community regarding the importance of adding "theory" to "Big Bang", then bring us those references. And again, why would adding "theory" to the article name make it more clear that the "cosmic explosion" is just hypothetical. --Fama Clamosa (talk) 12:05, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
- This is a common misconception. The "Big Bang theory" is not the "theory of the Big Bang". Rather it is a theory of the evolution of the universe, one of the implications of which is that the universe must have started in a hot rapidly expanding state, which became the feature for which the theory was named. It was however never precisely clear what feature of the theory was to be called the Big Bang (the initial singularity? the rapidly expanding phase that followed it? when that it end?), nor was this ever a truly relevant question, since "big bang theory" was just a name, to distinguish it from competing theories (at the time) like steady-state.TR 11:33, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
- (1) Just have a look at the article. "Theory" (etcetera) is simply added to "Big Bang" to avoid confusion, not to make a distinction. (2) Apparently those are the names used for those theories (BTW, steady state/quantum field). (3) The "Big Bang theory" is not the "theory of the Big Bang".-- isn't this the reason you want to add "theory"? (4) Of course the article should describe what the "Big Bang" is. If there are several interpretations/no consensus, this should of course be explained. Are you saying that by adding "theory" to the title we can "hide" the "event problem" in the third section or so? --Fama Clamosa (talk) 18:33, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose "Big Bang" is shorter and frequently used to refer to the concept detailed here. 184.144.160.156 (talk) 13:21, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose The usage I commonly hear or read from other astronomers, referring to the theory both formally and informally, is not "big bang theory," but "big bang model" or "big bang cosmology." Besides, this article specifically says it is about the event known as the "big bang," and that is the common usage even by professional astronomers.Astrocog (talk) 14:17, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
- From my experience "big bang theory"/"big bang model"/"big bang cosmology" are pretty much used interchangebly, however mostly with such an addition if one is referring to the theory/model. But, so what event do astronomers mean (in your opinion) when they talk about "the Big Bang"? My experience is that they can mean one of several events or processes.TR 14:51, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose I don't know why people trying to write an article into a title. The title is a search key by which it is normally known. It isn't the article. Dmcq (talk) 15:17, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose Pretty much what Dmcq says. --Six words (talk) 15:46, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose per Dmcq and others. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 19:46, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose—Per WP:TITLE: Conciseness - shorter titles are generally preferred to longer ones; Naturalness - titles are expected to use names and terms that readers are most likely to look for in order to find the article.—RJH (talk) 22:26, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose As mentioned above, the Big Bang refers to an event, "The Big Bang was the event which led to the formation of the universe", an event isn't a theory, a theory describes or predicates an event etc, the Models that predict the Big Bang. IRWolfie- (talk) 19:17, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
- The only reason that sentence is there, is because of the current title of the article is Big Bang. Nowhere else does the article talk about the big bang is an event. In fact the rest of the article is manifestly about the big bang theory/model/cosmology. This inconsistency has led to confusion with various readers, and is part of the reason why I suggest we rename the article.TR 20:45, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
- Check out the new Discover Magazine, that recently came out, which calls it "Big Bang". -- a popular science magazine, not a scholarly magazine. 65.93.13.60 (talk) 04:55, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
- The only reason that sentence is there, is because of the current title of the article is Big Bang. Nowhere else does the article talk about the big bang is an event. In fact the rest of the article is manifestly about the big bang theory/model/cosmology. This inconsistency has led to confusion with various readers, and is part of the reason why I suggest we rename the article.TR 20:45, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
Evolution
This article uses the word evolution a few times to describe the development of galaxies after the Big Bang. While I agree its technical use is correct, it seems to me that it just furthers the misconception that the Big Bang is part of the theory of evolution. Is there any way we can change this? Harutsedo2 (talk) 15:07, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
- The term "evolution" is widely used in astronomy and astrophysics ("stellar evolution" being one of the most common contexts). I don't think this is confusing enough to justify removing the term from this article, given that it's widely used in the field. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 19:37, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
Citation needed, really?
The article claims that the Big Bang is prevailing, but someone added a [citation needed], template call. Isn't that pretty ridiculous in the intro? While the article have a "religious interpretations" section, it would be well served by a section with some small comparisons with competing cosmologies, to demonstrate the relative longevity and stability of the Big-Bang-Theory-with-the-Alan-Guth-Inflation-Extension. Then such a [citation needed] could easily be dismissed by a simple "RTFA!" Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 13:21, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
Big Bang - features, issues and problems
Stickee, I see you reverted my edit with the reasonable message that my points had already been addressed elsewhere in the article. I had written the following:
The first problems to consider are what actually triggered the Big Bang and where did the energy (and subsequent matter), spacetime and fundamental forces actually originate from. This is not yet understood.
Although the closest I could find to anything I had mentioned was in the section 'Speculative physics beyond Big Bang theory' with regard to brane cosmology models (unless you are referring to something else in the article that I missed) however brane cosmology models don't explain the origin of energy/matter and spacetime (or strings) as far as I am aware. I understand that this talk page isn't the place to discuss how anyone thinks the universe might have begun (and I don't intend to), but I feel it is fair to state in the article simply that it is unknown how the energy and spacetime from the big bang came into existence - it is very much relevant to the topic.
I just wanted an opportunity to discuss this before considering putting anything back in the article (which I wasn't planning on doing in a reactionary manner). Thanks CharlesC (talk) 00:19, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, I do see where you're coming from. But to quote Stephen Hawking, "Anything that happened before the big bang could not affect what happened after". To attempt to find out what happened before the Big Bang is both impossible and pointless. So I guess a better paragraph to include would be one stating how what happened beforehand is unknowable. Your thoughts? Stickee (talk) 00:59, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
- I considered modifying or reverting your addition, but held off because I'm on semi-sabbatical and someone else would likely vet it after me (as was the case). Your statements about the energy content being controversial don't reflect the views of the scientific community, as far as I've seen. First, there are scenarios where the gravitational potential energy and mass energy of the universe exactly cancel; this gives the universe a net energy of zero, which - while not required - is an attractive interpretation. Second, conservation of energy is a local effect. The universe taken as a whole isn't required to conserve it (or any other conserved quantity), so to have it come into existence with net energy doesn't invalidate the model.
- Third, the "big bang" as a theoretical model generally doesn't include the instant at which everything came into existence; in scientific circles, it actually refers to the evolution of the universe from the time it was at the Planck temperature onwards (as we don't know what physical laws apply at the Planck temperature, other than that our low-temperature description of gravity as a non-quantized force stops working properly). So, both the mechanism of creation and any violation of normally-conserved numbers that occurred at that time are out of the scope of the scientific use of the term, at least.
- Popular media uses the term "big bang" to refer to the instant of creation, and that's sometimes used as a shorthand by scientists (when they're more accurately referring to "time since the Planck epoch"). However, the article already made this distinction clear last time I did a detailed check of it. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 01:14, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
- to add to that, to use the most 'pure' interpretation of WP:OR (in, i will admit, a semi-tongue-in-cheek manner), absolutely everything before the planck temperature is original research, in the sense that we literally cannot know what happened before this point. we can speculate, but that does no good as far as wikipedia is concerned. we can certainly report what others speculate in peer-reviewed journals with regards to what happened before then, though. Kaini (talk) 04:05, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
- It seems the Bang is still Banging, according to recent articles on dark matter, showing that the universe is still expanding. Brian Pearson (talk)
Lemaitre's position
As Lemaitre's title of Monsignor is given before his name I don't think it's necessary to mention the fact that he was a priest in the same sentence. In any case the fact that he was a priest is irrelevant to his work on the Big Bang theory: he did that in his capacity as a professor of physics. He was also a qualified artillery officer, but I don't see any reason why that needs to be mentioned. FergusM1970 (talk) 18:00, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
- Any theory of the Big Bang obviously has religous implications. And not everyone will know what the title of Monsignor means. And most sources on Lemaitre and the BB do mention his religion. -- cheers, Michael C. Price talk 18:06, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
- I don't see any religious implications to the Big Bang theory, and the fact is that Lemaitre's position at the university was that of part-time physics lecturer. The Big Bang theory is purely scientific and contains no supernaturalism or christian dogma, and I don't see how it was in any way influenced by the fact that Lemaitre was a priest. In any case this isn't an article on Lemaitre; it's an article on the Big Bang theory. The article on Lemaitre DOES discuss his religion, quite extensively, but I don't see how it's relevant here. FergusM1970 (talk) 18:16, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
- Others can see the relevance, which is why most popular sources on the BB that mention Lemaitre's role will also mention that he was a priest. If it really is that irrelevant then we should remove his title as well. -- cheers, Michael C. Price talk 18:19, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
- What is the relevance of Lemaitre's being a priest to the Big Bang theory? FergusM1970 (talk) 18:34, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
- It's relevant to the development and acceptance of the big bang theory. Atheists originally rejected the concept, believing it pointed to the existence of a God. The big bang theory itself has nothing to say about religion. However, social commentary on it and personal perspectives about it lean heavily on theistic issues.Farsight001 (talk) 21:03, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks Farsight001. Note that FergusM1970 turned the implication around, to render it nonsensical. Would be readers be interested in this? Apparently they are, since sources outside WP mention this a lot. We just reflect that interest here. -- cheers, Michael C. Price talk 21:21, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
- What is the relevance of Lemaitre's being a priest to the Big Bang theory? FergusM1970 (talk) 18:34, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
- Others can see the relevance, which is why most popular sources on the BB that mention Lemaitre's role will also mention that he was a priest. If it really is that irrelevant then we should remove his title as well. -- cheers, Michael C. Price talk 18:19, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
- I don't see any religious implications to the Big Bang theory, and the fact is that Lemaitre's position at the university was that of part-time physics lecturer. The Big Bang theory is purely scientific and contains no supernaturalism or christian dogma, and I don't see how it was in any way influenced by the fact that Lemaitre was a priest. In any case this isn't an article on Lemaitre; it's an article on the Big Bang theory. The article on Lemaitre DOES discuss his religion, quite extensively, but I don't see how it's relevant here. FergusM1970 (talk) 18:16, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
I'm reverting the descriptive of being a priest. Totally irrelevant. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 21:18, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, it is to be expected that OM would see things in a totally black-and-white fashion. -- cheers, Michael C. Price talk 21:21, 30 May 2011 (UTC)