DavidD

Thank you ajb, for your courteous response directing me to the Wikipedia entry for Lambda-CDM model. While Wikipedia articles are indeed useful, as you know they are not primary references. I was hoping to get a citation to a peer-reviewed paper describing or defining an Expansion model; you chose Lambda-CDM model which is fine. While I am familiar with the Wikipedia entry, and am following up on two references I had not previously reviewed, it appears there is a conflict in description. Your kind response mentioned “the lambda CDM model, but this does not address the initial singularity.“ However, the Wikipedia article states “The model includes a single originating event, the "Big Bang" or initial singularity . . . “ While I am sure you can help clear that up, perhaps you or someone could please direct me to a primary reference, a citation to a peer-reviewed published paper for the best available valid hypothesis for standard cosmological model. While waiting, I cannot avoid reflecting on Professor Peebles Feb. remarkable statement in 2011 -- ". . . the [standard model] definition is a mess." Thank you again, -David

Thank you for your thoughts and time. Do I understand that this response suggests that there is not yet a fully complete Big Bang or Standard model hypothesis ? If so, then could you please help point me to the most complete Big Bang or Standard model hypothesis ? And please pardon me for asking, but isn’t that circular reasoning ? (http://en.wikipedia....rcular_argument) Doesn’t the response above assume an idea is a valid hypothesis (“the presumably quantum nature of the singularity” assumes Big Bang is a complete and valid hypothesis because "the singularity" is unique to Big Bang / expansion models) and then claim it is impossible ("premature") to define the same idea ? Maybe I don't understand, but I can't make those two fit. How can we assume something is true and valid (and use it), but we can't define it ? From that multitude of cosmologists and astronomers and many clear hypotheses, could you please consider providing a citation to the best valid hypothesis in a published paper. I only need one. Perhaps you could provide a citation to your favorite (most complete) definition of the lambda CDM model. Thank you

Thank you for asking. A complete scientific hypothesis is an un-ambiguous testable claim. For a more thorough definition see -- http://www.cosmology....htm#Hypothesis and for details and examples see the paper "Ground Rules for Cosmological Physics" (pgs 2-3) -- http://cosmologyscie...og/?page_id=165

The quote from Princeton's widely respected cosmologist P. James E. Peebles is from last week, not 18 years ago. He wrote last week ". . . the [standard model] definition is a mess." Each of last week's thoughts from Peebles and IAU's Schmidt should cause one to pause, but taken together they are worthy of discourse. http://cosmologyscie...m/cosblog/?p=66 I completely agree with you that "The "Big Bang" is not one theory, but a broad descriptor. There are many agreed-upon details in cosmology, and many details needing further explanation. Hence there are multiple proposed models to account for these details." Perhaps you can help cite one paper that provides a complete scientific hypothesis for any agreed upon model. I've looked hard and haven't found a complete one yet.

The International Astronomical Union has no Definition for Big Bang After putting in a bit of effort in getting answers and permissions and writing it up, I thought you might appreciate learning of two significant, related cosmology news events that occurred last week. 1. The International Astronomical Union confirmed that they have no definition for Big Bang, and their Cosmology Commission VP explained why they probably will not do so. 2. ". . . the [standard model] definition is a mess." according to perhaps the most cited cosmologist - P. James E. Peebles of Princeton (author of "Principles of Physical Cosmology") You can read about these on my Cosmology Science website at -- http://cosmologyscie...m/cosblog/?p=66 If IAU is not interested, who should take responsibility for maintaining the scientific claim we call "Big Bang?" I believe this is important because without a clear scientific hypothesis, how can one claim to be discussing science? -David Dilworth