Talk:Big Bang

"incomplete"

I removed the following text between "dominant" and "theory". All current physical theories are incomplete, no?

 , though incomplete,

The problem with that is the Big Bang is portrayed almost universally as the final word in cosmology. Some people that dont see the word incomplete might never think twice about it, and never realize that it is indeed incomplete. -Ionized 16:39, Feb 15, 2004 (UTC)

confusing grammer

Old Talk

In 1927, the Belgian priest [Georges Lemaître] was the first to propose that the universe began with the explosion of a primeval atom. His proposal came after observing the redshift in distant nebulae by astronomers to a model of the universe based on relativity.

What does this mean?

Also, the claim that the universe was initially microscopic is suspect as discussed on talk:Redshift. If the universe is infinite, than it was infinite already at the very first moment. --AxelBoldt

language nit-picks

I've made a few corrections - but this is far from complete.

According to this theory, the universe emerged spontaneously between 10 and 20 billion years ago from a gravitational singularity, at which time started and all distances in the universe were zero.

"emerged" implies existence of a previous space - it's wrong

"from a ..." is wrong - the singularity is part of the universe

"time started" assumes two concepts of time, since you can't conjugate a verb in time (e.g. past) if you're talking about time itself.

"all distances...were zero" - if you think of the singularity as a single point, then it's meaningless to talk about distances - a distance only makes sense between two distinct points

A common way to think about this theory is to think of global time and space separately - the theory assumes Weyl's postulate, which states that this is possible. Thinking in this way, space itself has only existed for about 13-17 billion years. Thinking backwards in time towards the "beginning", this "beginning" can be thought of as a gravitational singularity.

The model includes all of space-time, so the question "What was there before the Big Bang?" is meaningless in terms of the standard model.

Because of this, the distance between distant galaxies increases faster than the speed of light. This is possible because special relativity only states that matter and information cannot travel through space faster than the speed of light. It doesn't limit how fast space itself can stretch.

"It doesn't limit how fast space itself can stretch." The stretching of space is not a velocity. "fast" means a change in quantity X with respect to time, usually X=distance. It only has a meaning once you know what definitions of distance and time you are talking about.

Because of this, the change in comoving distance between distant galaxies divided by cosmological time can be greater than the speed of light. This a theoretical concept and not an observational one. For example, galaxies whose light will not reach the Earth for tens of billions of years can be said to be moving away faster than the speed of light according to this definition. This does not violate the laws of special relativity, which is a local theory, which states, among other things, that matter and information cannot travel through space faster than the speed of light, but does not deal with global space-time concepts.

If an observational definition of distance to distant galaxies, e.g. the distance integrated along the path of a photon from a distant galaxy to the observer, using the locally valid distances at each point of the path, is used instead, then the change in this distance divided by cosmological time cannot be greater than the speed of light.

A strict empiricist might say that using the former definition only relates to galaxies which do not exist, in the sense in which chocolates hidden in an unopened box do not exist to the observer, but further discussion of this should go to one of the philosophy pages. --boud

Good points. A couple of comments:

The description of the singularity as "all distances being zero" seems to me to be correct. Even if it is a point, then all distances are zero: you don't need two different points to measure distance. I think it gives the beginner a good picture of what the singularity is like. Also, a point is often thought of as something infinitely or microscopically small, which doesn't fit well with the (most likely) spatially infinitely large universe right after the big bang.

I would move Weyl's postulate out of the first paragraph, which should only outline the highlights of the theory, and explain it later. Most people intuitively separate space and time anyway, so it's no biggie that the theory does the same, except for people who constantly think about spacetime manifolds.

Right now, the first paragraph contains too many "think"s and "thought"s. We should try to find more definite language.

Regarding the different distance definitions: We probably need a page explaining the various defintions of distance in an expanding universe.

AxelBoldt 03:15 Oct 5, 2002 (UTC)

K-correction

Who put the bit about the K-correction? Nowadays it means something slightly different, but I don't know about the history of the term to know if the reference in the text is right.--AN 00:59 Oct 25, 2002 (UTC)

Who put the bit...

Guilty as charged. i've put in wirtz. He published in a journal whose abbreviation is identical with your nick: "AN".

You'd have to read the AN article (in German) to check - i don't have convenient access - so i don't remember whether his K-correction was a magnitude (logarithm of luminosity) correction or the redshift (shift in wavelength). But i agree the definition has probably evolved, though AFAIK this is where the term comes from.

--boud

relevant ?

Regarding the different distance...

i've started with comoving distance

--boud

Fred Hoyle ... but there's a younger F. Hoyle - Fiona Hoyle - doing observational cosmology research ...

--boud

2004

Critics point out that the Big Bang (BB) represents a "genesis-story" (a scientific creation myth). Critics of what? of the BB ... the universe may have always existed and have no "point" origin (like the origin proposed by the BB and many religions). It's the same thing that the latter part of the article states, the BB generally seems to point to a "creation event" (and why many accept it). Sincerely, JDR

Peak, inserting (in your words) "nonsense" into the Preamble is not sabotage (nor have that been my intent). The proper place to address the non-standard theories is at Non-standard cosmology, though acknowledging them (just a few sentences, which seem like there is now) in the main article is called for (ie. there is valid "nonsense" to consider when understanding the BBT). The improvement to the non-standard cosmology articles are needed, though, and i will focus on them also ... Sincerely, JDR

I think this article is coming along nicely. While I personally will not lay my hands on this article, there are some things that I would change if I did. I would like to see changed the claim the Gamow was the "original" predictor of the CMB, and the only one that predicted its value correctly, since his predictions diverged from the correct value. By 1965, Gamow was not predicting the correct value (please see non-standard talk for reference, Assis and Neves 95.) - Ionized

[Peak] Please note that when Eddington wrote about the "temperature of interstellar space", he was not talking about the CMB. He was writing about starlight. Specifically:

The source of the radiation was taken to be as follows -- 5% from stars at 18,000 deg., 10% 12,000 deg., 20% 9,000 deg, 40% 6,000 deg.; 25% 3,000 deg.

This is a c-n-p off of this pages JDR (PS. you can see the entire thread and the discussion here)

(See Eddington's "The Internal Constitution of Stars", pp 371-377; these page numbers come from the second impression published in 1930.)

Olber's paradox

Olber's paradox is a metaphysical or philosophical debate based on faulty premises, much like Xeno's paradox. Olber's paradox states that the sky should be infinitely bright always. For this to be true, space would have to be a perfect conductor of energy and there would have to be an infinite amount of energy a finite distance from Earth. Neither of these assumptions hold true when compared to reality. Olber's paradox is not a paradox to be solved but a red herring to be discarded. Though Olber's paradox is not relevant in any way to reality, solutions have also been offered based on the assumptions that the universe is essentially infinite in age and size as well as being completely ordinary with no fantastic, unobservable matter or fantastic, unobservable energies[1].

The cited paper is actually a very nice paper. There is one problem. He concludes that Olber's paradox results in finite energy, but he doesn't go ahead and calculate the integral. If he does, he'll find out what people did in the early 19th century when they tried this solution and that is that you end up with the sky being the same temperature as the surface of the stars. The problem with shielding is that if you shield the energy, the shielding will heat until it reaches the same temperature as the radiating object. You don't end up with infinite amounts of energy, but you end up with non-black skies. Roadrunner 02:17, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Once again, space is not a perfect conductor. It's very good, but not perfect. Conservation of energy rules here. Regardless of the "solution" I offered for Olber's paradox, none of that changes the fact that Olber's paradox is not science. Olber's paradox is more of a metaphysical riddle or joke than a true paradox that needs to be resolved, much like Xeno's paradox. It is offered as support for big bang, so it needs to be balanced with criticism in the weaknesses and criticisms section. - Plautus satire 03:02, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

By the way, Olber's paradox contains quite a bit of information refuting the idea that it is anything more than meandering waffle. - Plautus satire 03:27, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Removal of Olber's paradox POV

Curps, I'm wondering why you chose to remove this point of view from the big bang page:

[note: the following character is not stray, but is a quotation mark indicating the beginning of a quotation]

"===Olber's paradox=== - - Olber's paradox is a metaphysical or philosophical debate based on faulty premises, much like Xeno's paradox. Olber's paradox states that the sky should be infinitely bright always. For this to be true, space would have to be a perfect conductor of energy and there would have to be an infinite amount of energy a finite distance from Earth. Neither of these assumptions hold true when compared to reality. In short, Olber's paradox is not a paradox to be solved but a red herring to be discarded. Though Olber's paradox is not relevant in any way to reality, it has been "solved" using the assumptions that the universe is essentially infinite in age and size as well as being completely ordinary with no fantastic, unobservable matter or fantastic, unobservable energies[2]."

Thanks in advance for your consideration and your patience, Curps. - Plautus satire 17:20, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I have just carefully reviewed this edition and I think that it is indeed too colloquial for an encyclopedia entry. I think I know what the problem is, how about if I change "it has been "solved" using the assumptions" to "solutions have been offered using the assumptions"? - Plautus satire 17:28, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

The wording you use is still problematic. I don't have the time right now to go into details. Curps

If you don't have time to properly compose an edit, perhaps it would have been better to postpone the edit until you did have time. I realize there is a strong temptation to overwhelm the presumed opposition with hasty replies, but maybe you could take a break for a while, maybe compose your thoughts, or gather them, or however it is you organize them and come back when you do have time to produce a proper edition. Thank you so much for your consideration of my editions and for your infinite patience on this issue. - Plautus satire 20:37, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Well for starters the part where you say "Hans Alfven has shown that" which is extremely POV (and simply false). As you are perfectly aware. Yet you continue in this fashion.

In your opinion it is false. Where are your cited sources proving what you are now claiming is correct?

The big problem with that paragraph is that Hans Alfven *DOESN'T* (or at least didn't) argue that the redshifts weren't the result of receding

galaxies. The Alfven model presumes that galaxies are receding. Roadrunner 06:20, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I'm not sure exactly where you got this idea, but Hans Alfven pioneered plasma cosmology and was one of the most vocal proponents of the idea that the universe is infinite and has always existed, not to mention governed by electromagnetic forces much more so than gravity. He did not believe in big bang, and the expansion to which he refers to in his theories was the assumed expansion that was used to explain curious redshifting.

Right. Hence the statement that

Redshift is often cited as evidence verifying big bang hypotheses. The works of Hannes Alfven, a pioneer of plasma cosmology, Halton Arp, and others have shown that big bang is unnecessary and strange, and that redshift does not correlate in any observable way with distance or with velocity, recessional, precessional, accessional or otherwise.

is false. Alfven believed that the redshift did correlate with distance and velocity. It's an essential part of his theory. Roadrunner 06:20, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

You are most certianly Wrong. Alfven did not believe in big bang, and sought fruitlessly for other explanations for the perceived expansion of the universe. - Plautus satire 06:38, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Even though he failed to completely understand the implications of his works, Hannes Alfven contributed most dramatically to undermining the big bang hypotheses. For this reason I intend to reinsert the material regarding Hannes Alfven, only this time I will spell his name correctly. - Plautus satire 02:46, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I am pausing because the question of how to deal with the material depends on whether you are willing to move it to a more appropriate page. Curps 21:25, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

The sheer volume of material you have added is excessive. Most or all of it should go on Non-standard_cosmology or Beyond_the_standard_Big_Bang_model, or some brand new page.

Consider the Apollo_moon_landing_hoax_accusations page, to which you yourself contributed under the 24.79.3.230 IP address. The material is on its own separate page, rather than cluttering the mainstream page. Curps 19:51, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

If this is the case then all the criticisms of unproven and unprovable black hole hypotheses (and all unproven and unprovable hypotheses) belong on a seperate page. As it stood, there was a pre-existing section titled "weakness and criticism" or something similar so I used it. If you dispute my information then kindly show me where I can find evidence that shows I am wrong. I hate when my errors go undetected. It seems strange to me that suddenly you seek to remove criticisms and weaknesses of unproven and unprovable black hole hypotheses now that I have added a few terse, cogent criticisms. Is that section only for absurd claims that are demonstrably false? Please help me understand. - Plautus satire 20:30, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

You are still stuck on your old incorrigible and arrogant ways. The main page on a topic is for mainstream material, or for "genuine" controversies where significant numbers of mainstream practitioners in a field disagree on both sides of an issue. It is not a place where unorthodox views of an extremely tiny minority (a polite way of saying "crank") are presented on a basis of equality with the opinions of the overwhelming majority. There is a home for your material on the pages I have suggested, or perhaps on a brand new page of your own choice. It cannot remain as-is on the current page.

Mention of crticism (and brief mentions of unorthodox views) should be allowed on the page (and clearly marked), but it does't need to be big nor overwhelming (pending the exact phrase). Extremely tiny minority opinions are unenyclopedic. Beyond_the_standard_Big_Bang_model may be applicable (primarily individual thoeries) ... (Non-standard_cosmology may also (if specifically a cosmology))... or a new article. JDR 05:29, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

And how does one ever expect to remove erroneous "mainstream" material from an entry? Let's assume a hypothetical entry that is ninety-eight percent wrong, but accepted by ninety-eight percent of observers? Is that good or bad? What if the "extremely tiny minority" is demonstrably correct? I have seen in recent hours a page discussing the wonders of irisology or some such apparent nonsense, and the page describing it is filled with ridicule and scorn for the very idea. Is this acceptable?

The following is excerpted from sections of the iridology entry:

"Criticism Mainstream medicine is dismissive of iridology largely because published studies have indicated a lack of success for some of the iridological claims:

In a study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association (1979, vol. 242 (13): 1385-1389), three well qualified iridologists incorrectly identified kidney disease in photographs of irides and often disagreed with each other. The study was conducted by researchers at the University of California. They used an iridologist's camera to take photographs of 48 patients with moderate or severe kidney desease and a control group of 95 people who did not have kidney disease. The iridologists fared no better in their ability to predict kidney disease than if they has simply tossed a coin. They did not agree with one another, and had no better luck in predicting the severe disease as opposed to the moderate. The researchers concluded "iridology was neither selective nor specific, and the likelihood of correct detection was statistically no better than chance". Iridologists defended themselves by stating that they needed live examinations and that their approach was valid for predictions of health, not of disease tags once the disease was developed and even complicated.

Another study criticizing an alleged inappropriate search for gall bladder disease in the patient's iris was published in the British Medical Journal (1988, vol. 297 (6663): 1578-1581). Paul Knipschild MD, of the University of Limburg in Maastricht, selected 39 patients who were due to have their gall bladder removed to following day, because of suspected gallstones. He also selected a group of people who did not have diseased gall bladders to act as a control. A group of 5 iridologists examined a series of slides of both groups irises. The iridologists were not able to identify correctly which patients has gall bladder problems and which had healthy gall bladders. For example one of iridologists diagnosed 49% of the patients with gall stones as having them and 51% as not having them. He diagnosed 51% of the control group as having gall bladder problems and 49% as not. Dr Knipschild concluded "this study showed that iridology is not a useful diagnostic tool ". Iridologists defended themselves with the same considerations as above, but also attacked the methodology of the study and rejected it in at least three published articles.

A 1985 review by L. Berggren in Acta Ophthalmologica (63(1):1-8) concluded "Good care of patients is inconsistent with deceptive methods, and iridology should be regarded as a medical fraud." However, L. Berggren added no new independent data and only made a statement of his informed opinion based on reviews of prior studies. In 1999 in the UK the The Academy of Medical Sciences said of iridology, and some other alternative medical practises: "these are valueless diagnostic techniques that are potentially dangerous if applied to patients who require proven diagnostic techniques." However, the UK is among the few countries where iridologists are both accepted and endorsed as certified health practitioners, who pledge not to use their knowledge in an exclusive way, but to rely on the clinical context. Moreover, no diagnostic technique outside the golden standard has an absolutely proven value but only a measurable false positive rate, false negative rate and oeverall accuracy ratios.

The advice given by iridologists is both specific and non-specific. Specific advice is centered on the weakness as found and could be integrated into targeted prevention strategies. For instance any screening method in populations always identifies a number of people in apparent full health who nevertheless show some hidden predisposition, diathesis or other specific disease-prone conditions. This is more than genetic screening inasmuch genes show potential while epigenetic studies, including iridologic, show actual problems once genes got the chance to express their code into actual living structures or physiological states. The non-specific advice, although good, is the same as that given by conventional doctors.

Mainstream Medical Examination of the Eye Although mainstream medicine considers iridology as quackery, there are many times when a conventional doctor will examine the eyes of a patient. The most obvious example would be diseases of the eye. Medical doctors performing iris examinations in order to determine eye problems, may use biomicroscopes and gonioscopes. Examination of eyes is a mandatory part of any clinical examination, attempting to answer clinical questions raised by jaundice, excess cholesterol, general neurologic conditions and more specific syndromes, including Foster-Kennedy, Claude-Bernard-Horner, Adie's etc."

Shall we all lead the crusade on over to the iridology page to rectify the grave injustice being perpetrated against mainstream iridologists? - Plautus satire 05:43, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Once again, then why is there a section in the black hole entry for weaknesses and criticisms? And you are now the benign arbiter of what is "mainstream"? And "main page" wikipedia entries are only for "mainstream" data and not all relevant factual data? Once again, who decides, you? I inserted material in a weaknesses and criticisms section of the big bang entry. There were already pre-existing weaknesses and criticisms existing in this section, and some still remain. If you feel these weaknesses undermine the credibility of big bang then perhaps it's time to re-asses the utility of having a "main page" big bang entry. It may be time to delegate "big bang" to "kook science". - Plautus satire 02:46, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

You are apparently willing to play by the rules on the moon-landing "hoax" issue by not tampering with the mainstream Apollo page. So why would you not be willing to do so here? Curps 21:25, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Problematic paragraphs. The main problem is that they are uncited, and it's not clear who is making this objection.

~~Where are all the other citations except wikilinks in that entry? Is every claim backed up by a source? - Plautus satire 02:46, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)~~ [struckout comment result of misunderstanding of comment above]

I see what you mean, you mean the broken-up editions are not properly cited and is confusing to read. Sorry this formatting comment was lost in the shuffle.

Please move all *explanation* of Olbers' paradox to the page Olbers' paradox, leaving only a brief pointer to that page on both the official Big Bang article and this discussion page. Thank you. DavidCary 04:55, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

This seems like a very sensible idea to me. We shouldn't have allowed the big bang talk page to get so cluttered discussing trivialities of Olber's paradox, since it clearly has its own page. Does anybody want to volunteer for this maintenance task? - Plautus satire 05:12, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I have one other request that may have gotten lost in the shuffle, that is for somebody to clean up the "cosmic background radiation" subsection in the supporting evidence section of big bang. It's huge and unwieldy and in my opinion a lot windier than it needs to be. - Plautus satire 05:23, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Isotropy of observable universe

Critics of big bang point out that that big bang before the ad hoc insertions of dark matter, dark energy and universal inflationary expansion did not predict isotropy unless the Earth was in the approximate center of the universe, and indeed in any incarnation only predict isotropy of the observable universe from the approximate center. As a consequence, isotropy would only support big bang in a geocentric universe. Any other region but the approximate center of a big bang universe would have an anisotropic sky as a result of the spherical or sometimes hyperspherical, toroidal or hypertoroidal shape of the universe predicted by big bang.

Citations??? Pretty much every astronomy paper that has been written in the last fifty years is at adswww.harvard.edu. Can you cite who is making this objection?

This is not rocket science. If you are inside a spheroidal, homogenous universe, any place but the center will give you an anisotropic sky to look at. Hope this helps to alleviate some of your confusion on this issue. - Plautus satire 02:48, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

If it is not rocket science, you should come up with a reference to someone who has made this argument Roadrunner 06:25, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

There are already more than enough citations to big bang beliefs. - Plautus satire 06:32, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Cosmic background radiation (blast radiation)

Critics of big bang argue that big bang hypotheses state alternately that big bang was an explosion and was not. For purposes of determining what is known as cosmic background radiation, big bang is assumed to have been an explosion, from which we should be able somehow, while being inside it, to see its lingering radiation. For purposes of evaluating observed violations of faster than light motion, big bang is assumed not to be an explosion but an explosive, true genesis of the universe at a tremendous rate.

The big bang is not an explosion in the conventional sense. IIRC, BB Cosmythology spacetime expands (being condensed "prior" to cosmic inflation). JDR

Actually this comment points out something I wanted to bring up before, but since it involved deletion I just rejected the idea. I am willing (damned enthusiastic, actually) to concede one or the other of these assumptions being made by big bang hypotheses, but not both, unless it is explicitly stated that differing big bang hypotheses make different assumptions about the nature of the bang and mention that some theories seem to be inconsistent in their take on the bang. The entry as it stands makes both claims, that it is an actual explosion (in its latest incarnation it seems to suggest that hypothetical, hitherto unobserved strange primordial matter and energy is responsible, not really an explosion but something that acts identical to an explosion but is explained using newly-coined words) and that it is simply an explosive genesis or creation of some combination of space, time, matter and energy. - Plautus satire 05:04, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Again. Can you cite the person or persons making this criticism?

Uhh...I'm making this criticism? A criticism of the big bang page which makes competing claims just on the pro side, to say nothing of the rapidly-dwindling con side. I'm sorry if my long-winded edition confused you. - Plautus satire

Are you familiar with black hole hypotheses? They all invariably dodge the faster than light motion issue by claiming the motion is not motion, but an expansion of the space between everything. And they all invariably refer to "cosmic background radiation" as "proof" of big bang, when it is nothing of the kind. Big bang theory states that at some point in the past the universe was opaque to electromagnetic radiation, and that cosmic background radiation proves that the universe was once opaque. Every time we make a new, better telescope and peer farther into space and farther back in time we see more and more, not less and less.

No we don't. We long ago reached the distance at which galaxies no longer existed. Roadrunner 06:25, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

This is absolutely preposterous. - Plautus satire

Where is this "opaque" universe? We haven't yet observed it.

Yes we have. The cosmic background radiation Roadrunner 06:25, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

You mean the fact that the universe seems to be transparent to electromagnetic radiation is proof that it was once opaque? I'm sorry, I don't see how that follows. Can you please explain for us simple-minded folks? - Plautus satire 06:35, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

You can cite ten thousand papers that talk about how opaque the universe once was. Where is the evidence? There is none. Hope this clears up some of your confusion on this issue. - Plautus satire 02:52, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I have a request to make here, in the cosmic background radiation subsection of the supporting evidence section of the big bang entry it states that "it says that as the universe was extremely hot at one point, it should still be a little bit warm even today, and calculations predicted a residual temperature of about 3 Kelvin". Does anybody know where I can verify how these calculations were made? Unless I'm mistaken, these calculations begin with the assumption that big bang occurred, and they also assume that redshift=distance=velocity=age and that the limits of human observation defined the limits of the universe. None of these assumptions is supported by any evidence except evidence resting only in the light of the big bang hypotheses, and these hypotheses are getting more complex and convoluted and more filled with exception than rule every month is seems. This is typical of big bang cosmologers, who often cite circular arguments as "proof" of their claims about big bang. - Plautus satire 03:22, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Abundance of primordial elements

Critics of big bang point to the claim that there is an abundance of primordial elements in the universe as further circular logic behind big bang. It is assumed by big bang proponents that only big bang could produce deuterium, so any deuterium in a big bang universe must be a result of the big bang, and since deuterium is believed to be rapidly consumed by stars, the age of a big bang universe therefore is finite. Critics note that if big bang did not occur, then there is another way for deuterium to be created. Critics also remark that no evidence has yet surfaced that suggests the universe is being depleted of deuterium. Assumed abundance of deuterium neither verifies nor falsifies big bang hypotheses.

Citations. There have been dozens of attempts to try to generate deuterium, but no one has succeeded. The basic problem is that any situation in which you can generate deuterium quickly becomes hot enough to convert it into helium.

Do you understand what a circular argument is? If the initial premise (big bang) is false, the argument (deuterium could only be created in big bang) has no merit and the conclusion (big bang universe is of finite age, proven by "lack" of big bang, which is proven by assumption that big bang occured and was and is the only possible source of deuterium) is specious. The actual "lack" of deuterium, now, is dependent on the assumption that big bang did occur and is the only process in the universe capable of creating more. The universe is an awfully big place, and electromagnetic energy often does very surprising things, like fusion of deuterium.

Remove Alfven from the redshift argument. Alfven doesn't dispute that the redshifts are receding galaxies. Roadrunner 02:07, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Alfven is dead. While he was alive, he fruitlessly sought other explanations for the perceived expansion, as he did not believe in big bang myths. - Plautus satire 17:07, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Redshifts can be explained by expansion. Also, electromagnetic interaction (along with other mediums) can perturb the measured levels of data. JDR

But Alfven did pioneer plasma cosmology, which today is better able to predict than big bang. Alfven was taught that redshift equals distance, and he knew of no other ways that light could be redshifted, so he carried on in the only framework he knew. Despite this crippling handicap he was still able to break new ground in cosmology, ground that is still unsafe to tread on today. Heretics are still burned at the metaphorical stake to this day. - Plautus satire 02:59, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I don't get this. The text ascribes views to Alfven that he did not have. Roadrunner 06:25, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

No, you ascribe views that Alfven didn't have, namely that he believed in big bang. - Plautus satire 17:07, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

True, but Alfven did explicitly hint that he was basically saving his own butt by allowing his model to account for expansion. As I stated last year, had he been alive and aware of the recent developments concerning redshifts in plasma, he might have changed his theory. Alfven also never agreed that it was a big bang, but that the apparent expansion might be a local expansion due to a release of energy in a double-layer instability. I cant say I agree with all the changes made to this article, but since I wont touch it myself I guess I cant say anything. -Ionized 19:47, Feb 20, 2004 (UTC)

Is Criticism Appropriate?

The black hole entry had a pre-existing weaknesses and criticisms section when I started editing it. I simply expanded the section to include some very common criticisms of big bang. If none of these valid criticisms belong in the entry then I would suggest moving all criticism of big bang to its own page rather than have all my relevant editions reversioned again. - Plautus satire 03:15, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Abundance of primordial elements

The bit on Abundance of primordial elements is faulty. There is no circular reasoning in the following logical sequence, which, if I understand correctly, is the one that's being attacked:

Deuterium will only exist if the big bang theory is true.
Deuterium exists.
Therefore, the big bang theory is true.

Now, the assumpution that "deuterium will only exist if the big bang theory is true" is open to debate, and may be false, but the logic is sound, and in no way circular. Evercat 03:32, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

On the other hand, perhaps the argument is:

Big Bang is true.
If Big Bang is true, deuterium exists.
Therefore, deuterium exists.
If deuterium exists, Big Bang is true.
Therefore, Big Bang is true!

This certainly would be circular, but I doubt any scientists are stupid enough to reason like this. It strikes me as a straw man. Evercat 03:38, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Strangely, your argument with yourself is almost as compelling as my persuasive number below:

Interpretation of a perceived lack of deuterium as being evidence for big bang relies on two assumptions. One assumption is that big bang would be the only process capable of creating deuterium. You state this above as "deuterium will only exist if big bang is true". Another assumption is made about the total matter in the universe, which is assumed to be finite as per big bang. This finite size is used to determine amounts of deuterium "expected" from big bang as the only genesis of deuterium. This assumed finite size is determined by calculating the size of the presently observable universe (which is expanding all the time, not by magic, but by the use of better telescopes). The only evidence offered to support the claim that big bang would be the only process capable of creating deuterium is the fact that we can not presently create deuterium. No evidence is offered to support the assumption that the amount of matter in the universe is finite, and all indications are that the total amount of matter in the universe is infinite. We haven't yet seen the "edge" of the universe. The farther we look the more we discover that the universe is pretty much the same all over. A homogenous universe is not consistent with big bang, which predict the farther away you observe, the more different and strange the universe should become. What we find from observation is that the more we look the more we find the universe is bland and predictable. Just not predictable by failing hypotheses like big bang and black hole, to say nothing of the riotous unobservable dark matter and dark energy. - Plautus satire 03:43, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Since I feel it may be overlooked, let me point out that my long-winded description boils down to Evercat's "straw man" hypothetical argument. Big bang cosmologers do indeed begin by assuming big bang is true. Their methods dictate that they do so. - Plautus satire

P.S.: Am I the only one who feels very silly when trying to compose reasonable sentences describing a circular argument? - Plautus satire

You don't understand the argument. It's a weak argument, but its not circular. It's not *assumed* a priori that only deuterium can be created in the big bang. The possibility that deuterium was created only in the big bang comes from the fact that people have tried very, very hard to come up with ways of creating deuterium, but have failed. (In the process of trying to create deuterium, they have manageed to create Li-6 and a whole other bunch of elements through cosmic ray spallation.) The argument is that since people have made a good faith effort to come up with deuterium production methods and consistently failed, that this is evidence that there are no such mechanisms.

Jedamzik, Karsten, "A Brief Summary of Non-Standard Big Bang Nucleosynthesis Scenarios". Max-Planck-Institut für Astrophysik, Garching. .... JDR 07:16, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

You can attack this argument on the basis that we haven't looked hard enough for deuterium creation mechanisms. This is a valid criticism. But it's not a circular argument. Also keep in mind that this is an argument against an argument for the big bang. Even if you manage to demolish the deterium argument for the big band, this doesn't count as a argument against BB. Roadrunner 06:11, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

If you use this argument to support big bang, it rapidly becomes circular, because initially assuming big bang is required for the evidence to be interpreted as support for big bang. - Plautus satire 01:37, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Quasar evidence

Just to fend off any possible criticism of my insertion of the criticism of relying on quasar evidence to support big bang, I cite the following:

"This galaxy which shows a plasma bridge connecting it to its infant quasar was spotted and image-processed by Sotira Trifourki of Manchester Astronomical Society. Her image-processing reveals that the jet continues well past the quasar. This recalls the discredited Steady State Theory of Fred Hoyle, Herman Bondi and Thomas Gold! They said “Galaxies breed Galaxies, generation on generation”."[3]

And this:

"The proper motion of TON 202 is perpendicular to the orientation of its radio lobes (Rogora et al., 1986). If it is truly as far as its redshift implies (z=0.362) its tranverse velocity would be of the order of one thousand times the speed of light, a clear indication that the cosmological redshift hypothesis is completely untenable. Which leads us to conclude that this quasar is a star within our galaxy (Varshni, 1973, 1974a, 1974b, 1975, 1979, 1982, 1988) the strong optical emission lines are due to recombination laser action in a rapidly expanding stellar atmosphere."[4]

Isotropy of observable universe

Some critics of big bang assert that only in a geocentric universe would isotropy be predicted by big bang hypotheses.

Again. Just name a name. Who makes this argument. Arp doesn't. Alfven doesn't. Lerner doesn't. Hoyle doesn't. Roadrunner 06:29, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Alfven is dead, while he was alive he was not a big bang believer. - Plautus satire 18:03, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Cosmic background radiation (blast radiation)

Some critics of big bang argue that big bang hypotheses state alternately that big bang was an explosion and was not. For purposes of determining what is known as cosmic background radiation, big bang is assumed to have been an explosion, from which we should be able somehow, while being inside it, to see its lingering radiation. For purposes of evaluating observed violations of faster than light motion, big bang is assumed not to be an explosion but an explosive, true genesis of the universe at a tremendous rate.

Who makes this argument? Alfven? No. Arp? No. Hoyle? No. It's also a mistatement of the theory. The cosmic microwave background is the point at which the universe becomes opaque. Roadrunner 06:29, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

And this opacity has never been observed to exist. So cosmic microwave background radiation falsifies big bang if anything. - Plautus satire 18:04, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Abundance of primordial elements

Some critics of big bang point to the claim that there is an abundance of primordial elements in the universe as further circular logic behind big bang. It is assumed by big bang proponents that only big bang could produce deuterium, so any deuterium in a big bang universe must be a result of the big bang, and since deuterium is believed to be rapidly consumed by stars, the age of a big bang universe therefore is finite. Since the interpretation of the evidence relies on the foregone assumption that big bang did occur, this is a logical fallacy. Critics note that if big bang did not occur, then there is another way for deuterium to be created. Critics also remark that no evidence has yet surfaced that suggests the universe is being depleted of deuterium. Assumed abundance of deuterium neither verifies nor falsifies big bang hypotheses.

Who argues that the deuterium argument is circular? Again. All you have to do is to name a name. Does Arp think this? Does Hoyle? Does Alfven? Does anyone? Roadrunner 06:30, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

It's circular on its face. You don't need to appeal to authority to use logic. Examine the claims and you will find they are circular. Very simple. Sorry if you got confused here, I'll try to be more succinct if I explain it to you again. - Plautus satire 18:05, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

William C. Mitchell has expressed many of these ideas, summed in 2 books which are still available. Concerning geocentric, Y.P. Varshni gave an interpretation (although I dont recall that it had to do with isotropy, rather it had to do with the quantized redshift observations.) I am in agreement that an appeal to authority on these matters is hardly necessary. There is no authority on problems with the Big Bang that any BB proponent would recognize as valid anyhow. -Ionized 19:30, Feb 20, 2004 (UTC)

Verifying Hypotheses by Falsifying

The following statement is in the big bang entry: "Their discovery provided substantial confirmation of the general CMBR predictions (correcting the inaccuracy of previous predicted values), and pitched the balance of opinion in favour of the Big Bang hypothesis." Clearly this passage states that "their discovery provided substantial confirmation of the general CMBR predictions". However, it further goes on to state: "[their discovery falsified CMBR predictions by] correcting the inaccuracy of previous predicted values". Am I the only one who sees a conflict here? - Plautus satire 01:41, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I'm not sure what it being referred to here. The only thing that I can think of is that Gamov guessed the temperature of the CMBR to be between 5 and 50 Kelvin and the actual temperature is 2.73 K. I moved out the statement in the hopes that someone will describe exactly what is being referred to. Roadrunner 04:33, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)

All the predictions (BB and others) missed it (you can say "guessed" but it was a BB prediction).

And Varshni and many others have shown that big bang predicts only slightly worse (15% of the time) and with much more confidence using arbitrary nonsense data as it does actual observations. In other words, if you feed big bang random garbage data, it makes the same predictions (due to now-incalculable numbers of fudge factors) and conclusions based on garbage nonsense data as it does of the observable universe. This proves that big bang has become so complex and ad hoc that any arbitrary data put into it (even nonsense) produces the same "solution". No scientifically valid model that has any predictive capability at all makes identical predictions based on good or garbage data. The defense rests. - Plautus satire 17:17, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

The predictions of the Big Bang theory regarding CMBR were inaccurate (these values were modified later from experimentation to fit the observational data). The article should not imply that the CMBR detection confirmed the BB theory (as the BB prediciton were as wrong as other theories) ... and this inference was the state of the article before including the info.

I've changed the wording to state what I think the author was referring to. Gamow predicted a 5K black body background. We see a 2.73K black body background. That looks pretty good to me. Roadrunner 14:20, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

As wrong as other hypotheses, and not nearly as right as many others such as plasma cosmology or the laser star hypothesis (while even though incomplete in a cosmological sense, STILL makes better predictions than big bang). - Plautus satire 17:17, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

From the above readings [see above discussions (2004 head)] that correct calculations couldn't be done by Gamow, many different helium mediums compatible to photon:baryon ratios, and there was around two orders magnitude higher of expected baryon density than current data.

Gamow assumed baryon density much higher than what we think now. However, He-4 abundances are relatively insensitive to baryon density. This actually works in the theories favor, because if the He-4 abundance were very different from what we see (i.e. if He-4 abundance was 10% or 50% rather than 20%), Big Bang would have some serious problems. Roadrunner 14:20, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

The CMBR predictions by the BB proponents (and it's later detection) is cited as a reason why the BB is the prevealant "standard" theory. Though this prediction was inacurate. The BB theory just changed it values and claimed "victory".

This info should be included. JDR

If you are going to include this, then just state the prediction, the result, and let the reader decide if this was a good fit or a bad one. Roadrunner 14:20, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Stating the prediction, stating the result, and stating that the two were in error is not an interpertation ... just a statement of what is true. JDR

Error is an interpretation. If Gamow asserted 5K +/- 0.1 K and you see 2.73, that's an error. He didn't. He asserted "around 5K" and 2.73K is around "5K". If you want, I can pull up the original papers. Roadrunner 15:43, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Error is not an interpretation. 5K is not "around" 2.73K (3K is ... and 2K is also ...) ... but 5K about 45% off. JDR

Do you mean to say, Roadrunner, that an overestimate to the tune of 100% is not significant? 5K is approximately twice the observed value. Does the big bang hypothesis have some mechanism for accounting for a 200% error? - Plautus satire 15:48, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Moved this here... These are consistent with the big bang, but they are also consistent with a whole bunch of other scenarios.

Isotropy of observable universe

Proponents of big bang also cite isotropy of the observable universe to one part in one hundred thousand as evidence that big bang is valid[5]. They further state that what minute anisotropy does exist is consistent with big bang hypotheses which include dark matter hypotheses, which necessitates the further ad hoc inclusion of dark energy and inflationary or accelerated universal expansion to accord with known observations.

The redshift of galaxies

By analyzing the light from distant galaxies, one notices that the shape of the light's spectrum is very similar, but the whole spectrum is shifted towards longer wavelengths for more distant galaxies. This suggests that the galaxies are moving away from us, resulting in an effect akin to the Doppler effect called redshift.

This interpretation of "more distant galaxies" being more "redshifted" is based on the premise that redshift equals distance. It is still a circular argument and it is still utter crap. Redshift is assumed to equal distance, and is then used to calculate distance, the result of which is then used to "prove" that "distant" objects are all highly-redshifted. - Plautus satire 17:29, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Moved here

Olber's paradox

The utility of Olber's paradox in verifying or falsifying big bang hypotheses is in dispute. Some critics contend that Olber's paradox is a philosophical conundrum and constitutes and unwarranted precept.

The problem is that Olber's paradox is not particularly strong evidence for the big bang. The big bang offers one way out of Olber's paradox, but there are many others.

I said I wouldn't touch this article, but I had to in order to correct some misleading wording, and to reinsert the quite valid sentence concerning quasar light curve. -Ionized 18:54, Feb 22, 2004 (UTC)

I added a pretty strong statement about nucleosynthetic predictions, but I'll retract it if someone points me to an alternate theory that even tries to make nucleosynthetic predictions. Roadrunner 14:43, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I have a problem with this paragraph. The trouble is that Vashini thinks that quasars are local, but as far as I know, he doesn't challenge the big bang. Arp *does* challenge the big bang, but he things that quasars are galactic, and Vashini's arguments would kill Arp's ideas.

These comments bear little resemblance to observable reality. Who said this? - Plautus satire 15:50, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Distribution of quasars

Some critics of the Big Bang theory have claimed that some quasars show proper motion and that therefore extreme distances are not possible[6]. There are two counterarguments. The first is that these observed proper motions are not real, and that there are well known processes for producing superluminal jets. The second is that even if it were demonstrated that quasars are not distant objects, this would not necessarily mean that normal galaxies are not receding.

How can superluminal jets be produced again? And why are these explanations consistent with big bang? Without violating faster than light motion? Can you explain here? - Plautus satire 15:55, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Oops. Read some more of Vashni's papers. He doesn't think that any redshifts are real. I changed the paragraph, because what he and Arp are asserting go beyond quasars. Roadrunner 15:02, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Actually he explains in numerous papers he doesn't believe redshift from velocity is significant, as there are many other known processes that account for high redshift, and that do not predict (based on observations) that there are quasars at the edge of the visible universe moving at superluminal velocities. - Plautus satire 15:55, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Changed "some" to "a few". If you want justification, do a random sample of cosmology papers published in adswww.harvard.edu last year. I'll change the wording, if you can show that more than 2% of the authors support a non-standard cosmology.

Keep in mind that science isn't a popularity contest. I'm willing to bet that <1% of the cosmologists in 1995 would have even considered an accelerating universe. A few isn't necessarily wrong, but a few is a few. Also, modified Newtonian dynamics was considered very fringe three years ago. It isn't mainstream, but it has some respectability now. Ditto the anthropic principle.

A few isn't wrong, but a few is a few.

Roadrunner 15:07, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

"random sample of cosmology papers published"? Umm ... that would be biased as those that do support it don't get published [I think this is related to previous statements in talk here that journals don't publish non-standard positions).

"science isn't a popularity contest"? YMMV on that ... but generally it isn't ... and a few is some ...

Few isn't wrong ... but it does neglect that more may support it ...

JDR

POV

"abundance" is POV "big bang" in lowercase is just a provocation "hypothesis" is POV and a provocation (intentional modification of "theory" to "hypothesis" as done in many other instances) "modifications and adjustments" is inaccurate: more accurate to say "filling in the details" Curps 16:18, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

No, abundance is demonstrated by the extant paragraph, which mentions two such ad hoc additions to big bang to make it conform to one line of evidence.

No, big bang in lower case is not provocation. it just looked more "right" to me. I have no intention of challenging the issue, capitalization is fine, after all, God gets capitalized and there is no evidence of deities so I do not quibble here.

No, hypothesis is not point of view. I made this change thinking that hypothesis is more appropriate for a theory that has been repeatedly falsified by observation. Like, for example, the hypothesis of deities.

No, modifications and adjustments is not inaccurate, these are the exact terms used in the extant paragraph, I merely borrowed them as they illustrate the point nicely that big bang continually requires maintenance for it to postdict reality. - Plautus satire 16:27, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

This page has now been repeatedly reversioned by silsor and Curps without adequate challenge in the talk pages. For this reason I am once again instituting the changes. If valid challenges arise here, I will postpone any changes after that. - Plautus satire 17:41, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

[Peak to Plautus satire:] I believe you have been trying to insert the clause:

"the abundance of ad hoc additions to big bang in order for it to conform to observable reality is prima facia evidence that there was no Big Bang at all."

Please desist from making this particular change. It is vague ("abundance"?), inflammatory (does every "refinement" of a theory constitute evidence that the entire theory is wrong?), and in this particular form just plain silly - whether or not an event occurred can usually be judged independently of the tinkering of theorists about the event. Also, please try to avoid introducing typographical and other errors and inconsistencies into the article. (E.g. the article should use "Big Bang" consistently when referring to the event or theory.) Thank you for your consideration of Wikipedia readers. Peak 18:00, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I have addressed this in a recent change (that was again reversioned without sufficient explanation). - Plautus satire 18:06, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Extraneous Link to Requests for Comment on Plautus Satire

Everyone please take note of Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Plautus_satire
Curps 17:45, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Curps, you seem to have a personal vendetta for Plautus_satire. JDR

That's what Plautus would have you believe. In this case, it's simply a small group of people in the community who are unwilling to let Plautus go from article to article vandalizing them (the "gang" who are out to get him, as he says). He's already driving Evercat and Finlay into Wikivaction. He has explicetely[sic - Did you mean "explicitly"? Hope this helps. - Plautus satire 18:12, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)] rejected the idea of NPOV, and his edits show it. In short, he is unwilling to live by the same rules as the rest of us, so everywhere on Wikipedia he goes he's going to have people watching him to keep him honest. →Raul654 18:08, Feb 24, 2004 (UTC)

We see once again Curps and Raul654 are trying to disrupt my use of wikipedia and insert their extraneous personal agenda wherever they find the slightest hint of possible plausible deniability. - Plautus satire 18:11, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

That's funny - a quick look at the RFC page shows that a lot of people (18 votes to ban you, 2 not to - 90% in favor) think you are the one disrupting life here. Why don't you just leave? →Raul654 18:14, Feb 24, 2004 (UTC)

Minor factual correction. The page has twenty-six votes, eighteen of which support banning me. Unless my math is wildly off, I think that's about a two thirds majority. Eight of these do not support banning me. In some cases votes were withdrawn after your attempts to browbeat "ban votes" out of people. - Plautus satire 18:19, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I feel your continued discussion of this topic on this talk page is inappropriate. Perhaps you would like to clip this section and add it to the bottom of my requests for comment page. - Plautus satire 18:17, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

No vendettas please

If you guys have a personal problem, go outside and settle it, will ya? This page is for discussion about improving the article.

The next one who makes a personal remark here goes on Uncle Ed's Naughty List. Don't say you weren't warned! --Uncle Ed 18:20, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Finally a voice of reason! Thank you Ed! I hope characterizing your voice as reasonable is not too personal. :D - Plautus satire 18:22, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Relax, the rule doesn't apply to remarks made about ME. I'm indestructible, like Bruce Willis ;-) --Uncle Ed 18:27, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

In that case, I feel many (though not I) would say you are reasonable, to a fault. - Plautus satire 18:32, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Page Protection One (1) Hour After Last Edition...Why?

I shouldn't have to ask now, but why has this page been protected an hour after the last edition, on a "favored," "standard" page? - Plautus satire 19:29, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Protected page. silsor 19:33, Feb 24, 2004 (UTC)

Which states, among many other things, "Administrators have the ability to "protect" pages such that they cannot be edited except by other admins. This ability is only to be used in limited circumstances." - Plautus satire 19:51, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Where is the justification for protecting this page one hour after the last edition? - Plautus satire 19:51, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Page protected

This page has been protected due to an edit war with no partiality towards a particular version. -- Viajero 19:32, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

What edit war? The last reversion of the page was an hour previous. Why protect a page an hour after an "edit war" stops? Where is your proof it was an "edit war" besides multiple changes to the entry? - Plautus satire

I see now the page protection was requested by silsor. "* Big Bang - cannot protect as I am involved. silsor 18:29, Feb 24, 2004 (UTC)"[7] and granted over one hour later by Viajero[8]. What is going on here, exactly? - Plautus satire 19:57, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Admins are not supposed to protect pages from edits wars they are involved in. Therefore, if they want a page protected, they have to request it, just like everyone else. →Raul654 19:59, Feb 24, 2004 (UTC)

Audit trail for this dubious page protection scheme here.