Talk:Big Bang#Religious interpretations

Can you add in the section Problems and related issues in physics - doesn't explain why stellar objects/celestial objects exist? Here is a source https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cjwvgevjjl6o Alimsts (talk) 16:08, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

:Also at the end of some Horizon problem paragraphs there are a lot of random numbers and figures like 191-202 et cetera. Can we remove those references? Alimsts (talk) 16:15, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

::The numbers 191-202 are page number 191 through page number 202 for the citation. I removed the trailing "-202" as unnecessary for the purpose of finding the source verifying the content. Johnjbarton (talk) 16:31, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

:The BBC article is about experiments to try to understand Baryon asymmetry which is already discussed in the article. Johnjbarton (talk) 16:28, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

::I mean the 3rd paragraph there, including the byline. Alimsts (talk) 16:41, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

:::'The current theory of how the Universe came into being can't explain the existence of the planets, stars and galaxies we see around us. ' Alimsts (talk) 16:43, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

::::That's just a journalist's odd and unhelpful way of describing the issue. The issue is the imbalance of matter and antimatter when particle physics would expect balance. In the case of balance, one possible outcome would be total annihilation, no particles. Other possible outcomes that have been discussed is antimatter galaxies etc. The baryon asymmetry is most likely to be an unforeseen consequence of elementary particle physics, an issue to be solved outside of the Standard Model of particle physics.

::::In terms of a model of the cosmos, sources take a number of starting points as "the Big Bang". If you start just after the baryons are created, the model is amazing in its effective predictions. The earlier times (higher energies) are technically outside of the bounds of the Standard Model.

::::There is no reason to change the page based on one sentence by a science correspondent in a sensationalized article. Johnjbarton (talk) 17:25, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::OK Alimsts (talk) 19:05, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::: I don't think it would hurt to add a sentence stating what the consequence would be if there was no baryonic asymmetry. It might not be immediately obvious to some readers. Praemonitus (talk) 01:16, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::I agree, but based on a solid source. To be sure, such a consequence would be entirely hypothetical: we don't know why there is asymmetry so any scenario with symmetry is complete conjecture. Johnjbarton (talk) 01:34, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::I added a sentence, but it can't be one like the BBC uses. Symmetry would mean no matter. It is unrelated to mechanisms that create stars. That is, we could have matter and no stars simply by having no dark matter, too high of expansion, etc. Johnjbarton (talk) 02:18, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::My recollection is that baryon symmetry would lead to an abundance of ordinary matter about a billion times lower, but not zero. It's a simple calculation, and the idea is that you get to a low enough abundance that each particle is not expected to meet an antiparticle over the age of the universe. Same idea as dark matter freeze-out. I might be misremembering the numerical outcome though. Aseyhe (talk) 03:30, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::: I'd speculate the consequence would be the same; any future concentrations of the matter/antimatter mix would wipe themselves out before objects could form. Praemonitus (talk) 04:52, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

There is this text:

"Another common misconception is relates to the recession speeds associated with Hubble's law."

It should change in this way:

- "is" verb removed

to:

"Another common misconception relates to the recession speeds associated with Hubble's law." Tyrannosauroid (talk) 04:07, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

:{{fixed}}. –CWenger (^ • @) 04:36, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

{{edit semi-protected|Big Bang|answered=yes}}

Please convert this sentence

The concept of an expanding universe was scientifically originated by the physicist Alexander Friedmann in 1922

into English as follows

The concept of an expanding universe was introduced by the physicist Alexander Friedmann in 1922

Thank you. 46.6.164.13 (talk) 04:45, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

:{{done}} Day Creature (talk) 05:29, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

{{edit semi-protected|Big Bang|answered=yes}}

Last week I read in the Daily Telegraph that scientists have finally come up with a replacement for the Big Bang Theory, namely the proposal that our universe is at the centre of an oscillating black hole, with the black hole's boundaries being the limit of our universe. This theory removes the need for an expansion from a singularity via a Big Bang and thus is compatible with quantum physics, whereas the Big Bang theory is not. Other black holes may likewise have other universes inside them.

So I was astonished to read in the Wikipedia lead that

A wide range of empirical evidence strongly favors the Big Bang event, which is now essentially universally accepted.

Can someone please reword this delicious pun to state that the Big Bang theory has recently been superseded by the more satisfactory Black Hole theory, and provide a suitable link?

Thanks. 46.6.164.13 (talk) 05:06, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

:{{Not done}}: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. A link to the article you mention would be a start, though I very much doubt that this supposed new theory has replaced the overwhelming scientific consensus. Day Creature (talk) 05:34, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

::I am busy this week. Can you please quickly google for the Telegraph article to convince yourself it is a serious scientific development, and then leave open the edit request for others to work with. This is not a minor change request and will require substantial input from people who more expert than me or you.46.6.164.13 (talk) 05:45, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

:::It's just sensationalism. The scientific consensus has not changed. Aseyhe (talk) 07:52, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

:File:Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Edit requests are meant for specific, noncontroversial changes. This is not to say you cannot continue discussion here on how to move forward on addition of new content, but this is already outside the scope of an edit request. Also would possibly be more appropriate for Black hole cosmology Cannolis (talk) 07:59, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

:Other sources; [https://journals.aps.org/prd/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevD.111.103537 the journal], [https://www.port.ac.uk/news-events-and-blogs/blogs/space-cosmology-and-the-universe/what-if-the-big-bang-wasnt-the-beginning-our-research-suggests-it-may-have-taken-place-inside-a-black-hole the university] and [https://www.popularmechanics.com/space/deep-space/a65038572/black-hole-universe/ Popular Mechanics]. It's just a paper with a new hypothesis. Nothing has changed or replaced consensus ("finally" or otherwise). No cause for astonishment or reason to change what this article says. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 09:16, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

{{edit semi-protected|Big Bang|answered=yes}}

Please change

A wide range of empirical evidence strongly favors the Big Bang event, which is now essentially universally accepted.[5]

as follows

Empirical evidence has supported the Big Bang event, leading to its general acceptance.[5] More recently however, a new theory, the Black Hole Universe, based on consideration of quantum mechanics, proposes a universe within a black hole, rebounding from contraction, thereby avoiding the perceived problem of a singularity. [https://journals.aps.org/prd/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevD.111.103537 the journal], [https://www.port.ac.uk/news-events-and-blogs/blogs/space-cosmology-and-the-universe/what-if-the-big-bang-wasnt-the-beginning-our-research-suggests-it-may-have-taken-place-inside-a-black-hole the university]

Thank you, Escape Orbit, for the literature research, and Cannolis for guidelines. 46.6.229.252 (talk) 09:53, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

: This topic is covered by Black hole cosmology. The current article already covers the topic of a precursor state in the "Pre–Big Bang cosmology" section. I don't see a need to provide undue weight to this particular hypothesis in the lead. Praemonitus (talk) 15:23, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

::I agree, this change is not needed. Johnjbarton (talk) 16:34, 17 June 2025 (UTC)