Skip to main content

You are not logged in. Your edit will be placed in a queue until it is peer reviewed.

We welcome edits that make the post easier to understand and more valuable for readers. Because community members review edits, please try to make the post substantially better than how you found it, for example, by fixing grammar or adding additional resources and hyperlinks.

4
  • 5
    $\begingroup$ TBH it's entirely reasonable to use the term in astrophysical contexts such as "One billion years after the Big Bang ...". The term is only troublesome if you need to distinguish the phases of the early universe. $\endgroup$
    – MSalters
    Commented Aug 28, 2014 at 10:48
  • $\begingroup$ I like this answer's message. So I +1'd it. But something about it doesn't feel complete enough yet for an acceptance. You can try to improve or expand on it if you like. If not, then what I might do in the future (and with your permission) is add whatever answers and info I get from other sources to this answer and try to establish when to use each definition more rigidly while maintaining the message of this post. After all, there's no real point in me writing up my own answer for acceptance when I could add to yours and thus give somebody a +15, right? $\endgroup$
    – Jim
    Commented Aug 28, 2014 at 13:29
  • $\begingroup$ @jim: if you want to use my post as a basis for an extended answer let me know and I'll turn it into a community wiki. However my personal belief remains that Big Bang strictly means the FLRW Big Bang, and using the term in an inflationary universe is a potential source of confusion. I wouldn't use the term in any context where its precise meaning matters. $\endgroup$ Commented Aug 28, 2014 at 17:01
  • $\begingroup$ I'll keep that in mind, but I would never consider changing your answer away from the intended message you posted. If I do add any information, it would only be used to elaborate on and potentially reinforce your point $\endgroup$
    – Jim
    Commented Aug 28, 2014 at 17:43