Should we rename the "Big Bang"?

[liveyoungdiefast]

A few disclaimers to start with

- this really doesn't matter that much, but I thought it'd be an interesting discussion

- I know I/you/we don't have the power to change a term even if we wanted to

Okay, so in watching many documentaries and reading many books on the Big Bang theory, I've found out that calling it a 'big bang' was really a pejorative term used by a theorist who supported a steady state model of the universe rather than one with a beginning. And I've found in debating with people (mainly creationists of course) that the now non-pejorative and accepted term 'big bang' leads many to look at it like a stupid theory, like a lot of religious folks say "You believe nothing magically became something". If we called it the 'primeval atom' theory or something more scientifically correct, would anyone take it more seriously? Or does calling it the 'Big Bang' actually help people without a background in science feel like it isn't too complex for them to understand?

[Will]

I agree it's a somewhat simplistic sounding title for such a momentous event. "Big Bang" seems more suited for a porno than for the source of all matter and energy in the universe. How about the origin singularity?

[McQ]

Sky and Telescope Magazine sponsored a contest to rename the Big Bang almost 15 years ago. It was a total failure. The name stayed the same. Astronomers can't seem to agree on what else to call it, so the new name is wide open to whatever anyone comes up with that will stick.

[curiosityandthecat]

I vote for singularity, too. As for the qualifier, I'm not too partial to "origin". Sounds like something from Halo.

I hope Kurzweil doesn't have "the singularity" trademarked or anything.  

[Hitsumei]

Well, if people say that the big bang suggests that "nothing magically became something" then they are wrong. No matter what it is named. The big bang does not suggest an ultimate beginning. Were as the "primeval atom" theory explicitly implies that there was an ultimate beginning, which is something not included in big bang cosmology. The big bang merely explains the current state of the universe. The prevailing opinion is that it was the beginning of space and time, not matter and energy. Though even this view is gain more and more dissent in recent years.

A singularity at the origin of the big bang has been considered mistake for some thirty years now. It was an example of confusing the map for the landscape.

If quantum mechanics turns out to be correct, then the very bottom end, and must fundamental thing in existence is the quantum vacuum. Which means that "nothing" doesn't exist. Never did, and never will. There was, is, and always will be "something". Extrapolation from observations on the quantum scale, they assert that the big bang could have resulted from a quantum fluctuation, which is observed of particles on the subatomic scale. Simply asking the "something from nothing" question begs a lot of questions. This was long pointed out for sometime by critics. What I have always found astonishing is how one can assert that "nothing comes from nothing" while simultaneously believing in creatio ex nihilo.

The important point is that the big bang is about the current state of the universe, not about its ultimate origins. This is quite similar to the misconception that evolution addresses the origin of life on earth, where as it does not. It explains why things are the way they are now, it doesn't explain where life ultimately came from. For life, there is the hypothesis of abiogenesis, and for the big bang there are various different hypotheses. Including the multiverse, a quantum fluctuation, and of course God. I would also of course include God as a hypothesis for the origin of life as well.

So, I don't think that the name needs changing. I think it's catchy. Also, when you can take something pejorative, and own it, it shows that it was never truly an actual objection to begin with.  

[karadan]

How about:

'The next step'

[SSY]

The whole somethign coming from nothing is really not the territory of the big bang. The Big bang, merley states that the universe started off small and hot, and expanded rapidly.

We really only know what happened down to about 10^-35 seconds after the big bang. ( imagine 1 second, being divided into 100000000000000000000000000000000000 parts, we know what happened all the parts, except the first one of that second). Before this time, we really dont know what was there, the BB is more about mechanically describing how the universe expanded as opposed to why it started expanding. More accurate would be "something larger and cooler, comes from something really small and hot, but we dont know what the small hot thing came from yet".

Also, Hitsumei, the quantum stuff is slightly wrong, and seems to be a poor explanation for how a universe could start. The quantum vacuum energy you speak of is a property of space, in the big bang, space itself was created. Before the space existed, you could not have gotten the famous vacuum anhilation reactions attributed to this "zero point energy" ( always hated that name, its so sci-fi ) as there was litterally no space in order for them to be created.

Also, physics fans will be excited to know, once The LHC is up and running again, we may be able to shift the time we know about back to 10^-38s, good stuff. Just have to wait another 10 odd years for the data to come through.

On topic, the name is going to stick I think, the christian argument about Nothing from Nothing is in exactly the same boat as abiogensis/evolution arguments, as pointed out earlier.

[Hitsumei]

Also, Hitsumei, the quantum stuff is slightly wrong, and seems to be a poor explanation for how a universe could start. The quantum vacuum energy you speak of is a property of space, in the big bang, space itself was created. Before the space existed, you could not have gotten the famous vacuum anhilation reactions attributed to this "zero point energy" ( always hated that name, its so sci-fi ) as there was litterally no space in order for them to be created.

This is why I alluded to the gaining dissent that the big bang was the origin of space time. Even if it was the origin of space time, a multiverse model would allow the event to have taken place in another space/time manifold. I believe I remember listening to a lecture where it was asserted that black-holes could be such an event.

Or perhaps 13.7 billion years ago Vishnu settled down for a cat nap. Lets hope it doesn't wake up any time soon.

[LARA]

Hmmm.  I like the idea of getting away from the simplistic and inaccurate term "Big Bang"  but I doubt people will want to change.  Names and ideas stick, even when more scientifically alternatives are available, just look at Illinois and Pluto.  

But how about the Super Fast Initial Expansion, SFIE?  Or maybe Primary Hyper Speed Cooling Inflation, PHSCI?  I like PHSCI cause it could be pronounced "fisky"  which is kind of a fun noise, although fun noises might lack appeal for the more serious scientific types.  But since it does sound a lot like physics, hearkening back to the area of study related to the event, it has a cool "loopy" quality.

[SSY]

Also, Hitsumei, the quantum stuff is slightly wrong, and seems to be a poor explanation for how a universe could start. The quantum vacuum energy you speak of is a property of space, in the big bang, space itself was created. Before the space existed, you could not have gotten the famous vacuum anhilation reactions attributed to this "zero point energy" ( always hated that name, its so sci-fi ) as there was litterally no space in order for them to be created.

This is why I alluded to the gaining dissent that the big bang was the origin of space time. Even if it was the origin of space time, a multiverse model would allow the event to have taken place in another space/time manifold. I believe I remember listening to a lecture where it was asserted that black-holes could be such an event.

Or perhaps 13.7 billion years ago Vishnu settled down for a cat nap. Lets hope it doesn't wake up any time soon.

As far as I have heard, the big bang was definatley the start of space time, what papers have you read that might dissent from this view? Also, don't even talk to me about mutliverse theories, we have already been all over that one.

Edit: that is to say, the big bang was sparked off at the start of time.

[Hitsumei]

As far as I have heard, the big bang was definatley the start of space time, what papers have you read that might dissent from this view? Also, don't even talk to me about mutliverse theories, we have already been all over that one.

Edit: that is to say, the big bang was sparked off at the start of time.

http://discovermagazine.com/2008/apr/25 ... e-big-bang

What I have linked isn't what I originally read, but it is a few theories that dissent. I can't find the paper I read -- it was in scientific america magazine, I read it a few years ago.

Whether you personally accept a multiverse model isn't important (I don't accept it as of yet either, though I am open to evidence), the fact is that it has gained support in recent years, and many of these models dissent from the view that the big bang was the ultimate origin of time.

That is all that I said. I didn't say that they were right.

[Will]

We could always call it "the thing". When we sell toys, the toy can expand exponentially and say "it's clobbering time!"