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Can someone please reword this delicious pun to state that the Big Bang theory has recently been superseded by the more satisfactory Black Hole theory, and provide a suitable link?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

👁 Image
 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)[]

👁 Image
 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; the journal, the university and 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)[]

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. [1]

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)[]

Change: ‘The concept of an expanding universe was introduced by the physicist Alexander Friedman in 1922 with the mathematical derivation of the Fridman equations.’ To: ‘The concept of an expanding universe was introduced by the Sikh Guru ‘Guru Nanak Dev Ji’ in the 14th century in the holy scripture called ‘Jap Ji Sahib’, and was first published in the ‘Adi Granth’ in 1604.’ ^[2] 206.45.203.98 (talk) 05:47, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[]

👁 Image
 Not done: This is clearly WP:synthesis.--Mr Fink (talk) 05:54, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[]

Two quotations...

In Inflation and baryogenesis:

In Misconceptions:

In each case it should be made clear to the reader that the term "observable universe" refers to the patch of space which would become today's observable universe, not the observable universe at that moment. Clive tooth (talk) 17:13, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[]

I deleted second example because it is about expansion of the universe not Big Bang specifically. And the source does not verify the claim: the source is primarily about superluminal velocity issues. Johnjbarton (talk) 17:43, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[]

I replace the first one, please take a look. Johnjbarton (talk) 17:46, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[]

Did Fred Hoyle coin the “Big Bang” to be pejorative?

Simon Singh, in Big Bang, writes: “The term ‘Big Bang’ emerged while Hoyle was explaining that there were two rival theories of the cosmos. There was, of course, his own Steady State model, and then there was the model which involved a moment of creation:

One of them is distinguished by the assumption that the universe started its life a finite time ago in a single huge explosion. On this supposition, the present expansion is a relic of the violence of the explosion Now this Big Bang idea seemed to me to be unsatisfactory… On scientific grounds, too, I cannot see any grounds for preferring the Big Bang idea.

When Hoyle used the term ‘Big Bang’, his voice took on a rather disdainful tone, and it seems that he intended the phrase as a derisory comment on the rival theory. Nevertheless, both fans and critics of the Big Bang model gradually adopted it. The greatest critic of the Big Bang model had inadvertently christened it.”^[1]

So: did he or didn't he? (Intend it to be pejorative.) Singh's book merits a Good Article, though it's not there (yet). Timothy Ferris's Coming of Age in the Milky Way and The Whole Shebang don't have Wikipedia pages (yet). Charlie Faust (talk) 17:14, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[]

In my opinion our content covers this issue is as much detail as the sources and topic warrant. We have presented a neutral description of the issue. Singh is a good writer but Helge Kragh is a renowned scientific historian. Johnjbarton (talk) 17:46, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[]

OK, fair enough. Agree that encyclopedic content should be neutral. We have a description of how Hoyle coined the phrase, and readers can draw their own conclusions. Sky and Telescope held a contest to rename the Big Bang, but that's another story. Charlie Faust (talk) 00:53, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[]