Talk:Timeline of the Big Bang
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, which collaborates on articles related to physics. | |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the assessment scale. [FAQ] | |
| ??? | This article has not yet received an importance rating within physics. | |
|
Please rate this article, and then leave comments here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. |
||
 |
This article is part of the History of Science WikiProject, an attempt to improve and organize the history of science content on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. You can also help with the History of Science Collaboration of the Month. |
 |
This article had a peer review that has been archived It may contain ideas that you can use to improve this article. |
[edit] Asking for a merge
[edit] Let's get 'er done
I wanna merge the articles. Let's get 'er done. -- Zalasur 07:23, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)
- I think it's worthwhile having one article covering the timeline of the universe from the Big bang up to now, and having a separate article that summarizes this material and also includes projections about the future of the universe. Personally, I oppose the proposed merger for this reason. --Eric Forste 04:25, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
[edit] bigbangisdeliciouscosito
I'm not sure who is more confused. The person asking the question or the person answering the question.
[edit] External Link
Should we rename this page: "timeline of the early universe"?
[edit] CP violation
I'm curious. In the periods where quarks/antiquarks and electrons/positrons were annhiliated, was the excess possibly caused by change-parity violation? And if this is so, doesn't this suggest that even these are made of even smaller particles, because for the cp effect to occur, the particles mustn't be assymetric?
[edit] 10-48 seconds?
Hi, does anyone have an idea where the 10-48 mentioned on this slide of a presentation titled "A Timeline of the Universe" come from? (http://astro.uchicago.edu/home/web/mohr/Compton/HTML_five/sld022.html) -- Schnee 14:40, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Grand Unification Epoch expansion factor?
Should the " cm" be removed from this sentence? It reads as if it was 10^10 cm and expanded by a factor of 10^20 to result in a size of 10^30, which is too large, surely.
:For the period of time between 10-35 seconds and 10-33 seconds, it is believed that the size of the universe expands by a factor of approximately 1020 to 1030 cm.
Also about the quark-annihilations, should this instead read "resulting in one quark remaining for every billion matter-antimatter interactions?"
:Birth of quarks, which appear in particle-antiparticle pairs. Quarks and anti-quarks annihilate each other to create photons, but quarks are created at a ratio of approximately 109 (1 billion) anti-quarks to 109+1 (1,000,000,001) quarks, resulting in one quark per billion matter-antimatter interactions. Free quarks multiply rapidly. -Wikibob | Talk 14:37, 2004 Jun 25 (UTC)
[edit] i'm pretty sure the currently observable universe is larger than the Planck length
This sentence: "The diameter of the currently observable universe is theorized as 10-33 cm which is known as the Planck length." seems to me to be at best very badly worded, and possibly even wrong. I was going to change it to something like "The diameter of the currently observable universe would have been only 10-33 cm at the end of the Planck time. This distance is known as the Planck length". But is that even true? Might not current the size of a "Planck volume" from the Big Bang depend on the details of the inflationary period and the age of the universe? -Lethe | Talk
[edit] This isn't true
Quote. Imagine a block of ice and an aluminium Coca-Cola can. If you increase the temperature to an extremely high value, then both objects will vaporize, producing a mixture of water and aluminium vapor which can be considered a single entity. If the temperature decreases, then below a certain value the aluminium will condense and freeze and stop interacting with the water vapor. Unquote.
Water and aluminum raised to a temperature that both vaporize becomes a mixture of aluminum, hydrogen, oxygen, and various ions and is part plasma (gas heated to the point that electrons break free creating ions), part gas. When the temperature is decreased, aluminum OXIDE, water, hydrogen peroxide, and hydrogen gas will condense and freeze out of the mixture.
Perhaps "Imaginine a block of a and b" where a and b are elements and don't chemically react at gas temperatures. argon and gold may do the job if they start as frozen, and then heated, and then frozen back again.202.156.2.36 12:17, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
- Remember to be bold, dude: if you see something you know is wrong, change it. I fixed it. --Superiority 05:06, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Should we merge this with Timeline of the Universe?
At first I was hesitant to merge the two articles together but now I belive the two should be merged. Any thoughts?
- See my reply to Zalasur above. --Eric Forste 04:30, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Should we merge this with Timeline of the Universe?
We should merge them cause the Timeline of the Universe is very low on info on the early seconds of the big bang. Timeline of the Universe might have to be expanded even more.
- I agree that information from Timeline of the Big Bang about the early seconds ought to be summarized in Timeline of the Universe, but I think that two articles ought to remain, after this process is done. I'll work on summarizing early data from Timeline of the Big Bang in Timeline of the Universe if you don't merge them. --Eric Forste 04:51, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- I do not think the articles should be merged. There should be a summary in ...Universe linking to ...Big Bang. Firstly, there is much to talk about in respect to the Big Bang (as can be seen with the size of the article) and I think merging would just clutter things up and diffuse the subject matter. Secondly, while I subscribe to the Big Bang theory it is still under development, and any subsequent changes would be better applied to the smaller article than the large one. Mr. Brownstone 15:16, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Logarithmic version
Over at Logarithmic timeline someone suggested a reverse log timeline could be applied to the Big Bang, so I genned up a first draft (improvements welcome).--robotwisdom 2 July 2005 01:46 (UTC)
[edit] I think this is a mistake with this page
The page currently says: "For the period of time between 10-35 seconds and 10-33 seconds, it is believed that the size of the universe expands to a size of approximately 10-32 m to 10-22 m."
Shouldn't it be "10-32 m 10+22 m"? I have two astronomy texts which say it increased by a factor of 1050. I would fix it, but I'd like input to make sure I'm right first.
[edit] Mixed up epochs
It says, "The Epoch of Nucleosynthesis covers the time from 3 minutes to 379,000 years after the Big Bang." But if you click Nucleosynthesis (piped to Big Bang nucleosynthesis) it says "It only lasted for about three minutes". This is a contradiction. I think it only lasted 3 minutes, but in that case your other epochs need to slide over to make room, or else some epoch has two names or something. Art LaPella 23:10, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
- You're tight. BBN stopped at +3min. At 400.000 the universe became transparent and CMB decoupled from matter. I'll fix it tomorrow, if novody was faster. --Pjacobi
There's another paradox in this section, "At this point the universe consists of about 75% hydrogen, 25% helium and trace amounts of deuterium, lithium, beryllium, and boron", so 3 minutes after the big bang BBN is finished and we have all of the abundant light elements formed.... but then... "379,000 years after the Big Bang: The temperature of the Universe is approximately 3000 kelvins. At this temperature hydrogen nuclei capture electrons to form stable atoms."
How can the universe consist of atoms before atoms exist? Maybe it should be specified that the universe consists of isotopes or nuclei of 75% hydrogen, 25% helium, etc. --Akira-no-Baka
- It says "hydrogen, ... helium ... deuterium" etc., but it doesn't say atoms, just as the Sun article mentions hydrogen, helium, oxygen etc. but not atoms. At that temperature the universe would be a plasma of independent nuclei and electrons. According to atom: "Atoms are canonically distinguished from ions by their balanced electrical charge.", that is, nuclei in a plasma aren't atoms. Perhaps the semantics is debatable, but that's what it means. Yes, it would be helpful to add the word "nuclei" or "plasma", as part of the bigger rewrite discussed above. Art LaPella 21:17, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Mixed up epochs unscrambled
I couldn't get the professional scientists to fix this, so here I go without you. My version could easily be improved. However, I'm confident my version is better than what was there before, as described above.
The temperature estimates kept conflicting, so I removed many of them rather that guess. Similarly, I removed the estimate of the size of inflation, as I could find no consensus for that figure elsewhere. And I removed the sentence that claimed hydrogen nuclei formed after 1 second, because a hydrogen nucleus is a proton, and it says protons and other hadrons formed earlier. Other sources seem to agree with the earlier time.
I often relied on [1] to help unconfuse this page.
Timeline of the universe has similar problems. First let's see how this change turns out. Art LaPella 23:19, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
[edit] timeline???
Um...I was kinda hoping to see an actuall timeline here....do you think you could make one? -Dr. Cribbit (message made by editing the page.)
- Does that mean me in particular? If you mean an actual graphical line, no I don't have much experience with graphics. If you don't, I'm not sure what else you would want. Art LaPella 04:39, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
Cribbit: I mean anyone. And by geographical, I'm assuming you the type of timeline that's a stright line and there are notches on it with times and events and stuff? That was kinda what I'm looking for...
-
- Yes! I was expecting a timeline too. I was looking to compare with Timeline of Motorized bicycle history --CyclePat 20:14, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
- I'm missing something. That bicycle timeline has neither a straight line with notches, nor graphics. It looks like this timeline, but without the pictures. Art LaPella 00:13, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
-
- Opps! Maybe I should have read a little about the article first. I was just looking at overal format. How was I to know that somewhere in the text (13.7 ± 0.2) x 109 was the year or some sort of indication of time. This article seems to have much more text information. Sorry. --CyclePat 03:17, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
- Maybe this kind of confusion could have been prevented by making the Big Bang itself part of the timeline that starts at "The Big Bang and matter formation". That is, the paragraph preceding "The Big Bang and matter formation" should be the first event, dated at 13.7 billion years ago, followed by the Planck epoch a split-second later. Art LaPella 17:17, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
[edit] cleanup
I've been trying to clean this article up. It was in pretty sorry shape before. Some information in the previous article was wrong, or at least poorly worded, but a lot of it I've omitted out of laziness/limited time. If some interested parties could compare the present version to this version and put pertinent, credible seeming information back in, it would be appreciated. Otherwise, I'm sure I'll get to it... sometime. –Joke 00:30, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
- I couldn't fix this sentence: "It is not known how inflation During inflation..." Some words were apparently lost before the word "During", but I can't guess what the words were. Art LaPella 05:11, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Recombination
I think the era of recombination could be explained better here if you make some mention of Hydrogen atoms and perhaps the Bohr model.
If my understanding is correct, before "recombination" the protons and electrons were separate, and after "recombination" the protons and electrons form Hydrogen atoms.
When light of any frequency passes through a gas of free protons and electrons, it is all absorbed; because the motion of the electrons and protons is not quantized, it can absorb light of any frequency.
Once the electron gets into the quantum shells of the proton and the electron/proton pairs form hydrogen atoms, the electrons can then only absorb light which has a frequency high enough to move the electron out of the 1s Bohr orbital.
If light has to pass through layer after layer of Hydrogen gas, eventually all of it will be absorbed except for the light that has a low enough frequency that it does not knock the electron out of the 1s orbital.
The light that is not absorbed has a maximum frequency the same as as blackbody radiation of a surface of about 3000 K. Whether the observed 3 Kelvin of the Cosmic Background is due to a doppler effect and recession velocity, or whether it is due to some expansion of space having some effect on the wavelength seems to still be some controversy.
Also, it should be pointed out that this phenomena may actually describe a "first" combination of electrons and protons into hydrogen atoms, unless you have a steady-state or cyclic model of the universe. I think the term "recombination" comes from studies of chemistry where experiments separate the particles, then let them recombine. In Big Bang theory, the "re" does not really apply.JDoolin 16:55, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Just Pondering
Wouldn't it be horrible if a vacuum metastability disaster occured while you were in the restroom? What if the last thing you did was use the toilet? Think of that next time you're on the john. Cissel 22:10, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Confusion about structure: baryogenesis
Baryogenesis is described to in the "very early universe" section. Later it is described in the Quark-Hadron phase of the "early universe" section. I think this article needs more consistent structure.
Ordinary Person 06:49, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
