Talk:Timeline of the Universe

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Peer review Timeline of the Universe has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

Contents

[edit] Comments not showing up?

I saw some relevant diff's on the talk page that "disappeared" into the áether. One of the more interesting comments is the following. Can we incorporate this into the main article? I'd prefer it not to be word-for-word as it is a bit of dry factual information (from what I can tell). -- Zalasur 01:21, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Comment on the web page

The hypothesis relies crucially on the type of dark energy in the universe. The key value is the equation of state w, the ratio between the dark energy pressure and its energy density. At w < -1, the universe will eventually be pulled apart. First the galaxies would be separated from each other, then gravity would be too weak to hold individual galaxies together. Approximately three months before the end, solar systems will be gravitationally unbound. In the last minutes, stars and planets will come apart, and atoms will be destroyed a fraction of a second before the end of time.

The authors of this hypothesis calculate that the end of time would be approximately 3.5×1010 years after the Big Bang, or 2.0×1010 years from now.

-- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Kzzl

[edit] Let's get 'er done

I wanna merge the articles. Let's get 'er done. -- Zalasur 07:24, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Okay that does it

Let's merge Timeline of the Big Bang to Timeline of the Universe. I took a re-review. Let's get 'er done. -- Zalasur 00:07, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hmmm

I'm beginning do have doubts about the layout I chose for the page. Too many entries in the TOC perhaps? Too many bullet points definitely.

-- Zalasur 09:31, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] References References References

Hm I gotta beef up the References section... soon it will be done...

Otherwise, I think I'm almost done with this one :)

[edit] Mostly done with the major edits

I don't see any reason why there needs to be any further major edits to the page. The Black Hole, Dark, and Photon Ages all need some padding out, and the References section is practically non-existant (I would like to find viable external references) but that can be done with minor edits. I think I would like to add a picture of a black hole to this article (after the picture of the asteroid but before the picture of the photons), but the only reason I haven't is because I can't find a good picture on Wikimedia's list of files, so I have to find a public domain one somewhere else or draw one myself.

I'm kind of curious about what to do with the "Timeline of cosmological eras" article... the information is highly redundant and I'm pulling most my data from there as far as when everything occurred. I think the two can be merged.

-- Zalasur 23:19, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] I need help

I could use references, corrections, and such. As of now I will focus on Wiki's formatting features to make this "look" better. This is my first Wikipedia article (although I may say it's a rewrite of an older article, it's really just a complete 98% rewrite).

Things I think I will fix (and play around with)...

1) formatting.. I need to learn Wiki's formatting guidelines and make this article "Feature Article" material. I need something to play around with and this is better than the Sandbox.

2) references... yeah let's make this a serious article. got any good sources? I could use 'em

3) pictures... picutres are pretty... mmmmmm donuts too

So who's with me on this one?

--Zalasur 20:45, Feb 27, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] I updated the page

I ran across this one one and kinda scratched my head... "it needs work" I thought. I pretty much updated everything and removed anything human-centric. I'm thinking that at the end of this I can write up a snap-shot (as of this day, the Universe is X old, the Milky Way is Y old, etc etc etc) or put that in another article.

Also needed (this will help me remind myself):

  • more references (and more relevent ones too)
  • more specific timelines... I need to look up some numbers to tack onto the events in terms of billions of years or something
  • The "ultimate fate of the universe" section
  • clean-up of grammar, spelling (oops), terms, and a little structural overhaul

Probably more too... whee

--Zalasur 05:14, Feb 27, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Exponential format

I noticed the article uses "base ^ exp" format because neither "base<sup>exp</sup>" nor "<math>base^{exp}</math>" display correctly in the TOC. :( Can we make a suggestion to the MediaWiki people to allow it? It looks really bad the way it is now. :| —Mar·ka·ci:2005-03-12 11:18 Z

[edit] Bright side

At least it let me use the caret in the TOC. I don't think I would have liked to type out 10^150 by hand.  :) -- Zalasur 18:05, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] New Thinking

I think the "Timeline of the Big Bang" article and the "Timeline of the Universe" article shouldn't merge because they are two seperate timelines. The Big Bang is part of the "Timeline of the Universe" article but the "Timeline of the Big Bang" article is a better explanation of its events -- Anonymous 18:50, Jun 29, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Older comments below

[edit] Anonymous

I just changed info about formation of earth from 3.8 to 4.5 billion years ago and origin of life from 2.5 to 3.5 billion years ago.

While it is true that science currently predicts the uiverse to expand forever and not collapse back into itself, is the prediction of a googol years just someone fooling around with this article? -- Modemac 23:46 Mar 2, 2003 (UTC)

[edit] Anonymous

From the article:

2 billion years from now: life ceases to exist on Earth

What is the mechanism for this? Increased/decreased solar output? Cite, please.

[edit] Anonymous

  • 2 billion years from now: life ceases to exist on Earth


Removed unless someone presents a justification. Also rephrased bit about future of the sun.

[edit] Comment

Moved here

Since human observations cover a very short time interval and relatively short distance, making detailed predictions about the distant future or distant past is difficult. Humans can only observe a fraction of the total universe, and the observations cover a very short time interval. It is possible that our current understanding of physics contains errors that are only noticeable on a very large time scale or very large astronomical scale.

We can see back 13 billion years and 13 billion light years across. Yes, it's possible that our physics is wrong, but you could add that disclaimer to all science articles.

User:Roadrunner

[edit] Anonymous

I don't know how this will hold up, but it seems that very recent work indicates that the universe is about 14.7 billion years old. Maybe add this as an external link for the time being? [1] --65.146.234.124 09:22, 27 May 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Humans

Shouldn't the stuff on Humans and Earth be on Timeline of Earth? It's not relevant to the evolution of the Universe itself. --Tothebarricades.tk 16:43, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia

Not that I'm doubting the significance of the Wikipedia or anything, but to have it listed here on the Timeline of the Universe? Oberiko 22:11, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] a bit messy

I think this article is a bit messy and needs some work. It should concentrate less on humans and even the earth; after all, earth only forms 10-30 (or something) part of the universe. Some of the more interresting events are on the Longer times page.

[edit] contradiction in wikpedia

the timeline here doesn't suit the one in the article "timeline of evolution" in some cases, like that of the appearance of molecular life is dated here for 600 BP whereas in "timeline of evolution" it is in 1,000 BP.

I really don't know a lot about it, but somebody should check it out and fix it.

Ido Hartogsohn

[edit] further contradiction

The section as follows appears to conflict with other articles, notable the Timeline of the Big Bang.

---

The Reionization Epoch: 300,000 years

Light energy from the initial expansion of the Universe stretches out and weakens to the point where matter finally dominates in influence (this is the generally agreed-to end of the Big Bang era). Telescopes are not able to see this far back into the history of the Universe because the deionization of hydrogen caused "empty space" to be opaque to light in most wavelengths. Instead scientists must use particle accelerators and theoretical physics to infer what occurred indirectly. The most direct evidence scientists can measure from the Big Bang is the cosmic microwave background radiation that is uniformly pervasive throughout the Universe. It is thought this background radiation is actually a snapshot of the early Universe and provides the best evidence of the creation of matter during the early epochs.

---

The other page lists 300,000 years as the DE-ionization period, which caused empty space to be transparent to light, not opaque. Can someone a bit more knowledgable clarify this?

Anonymous

At around 300,000 years, the universe became transparent to light because atoms formed from the electrons and light nuclei. Before this, the universe was opaque because the particles could abosrb and reemit any wavelength of light with a random change in direction between the absorbed and emitted photons.

At 300,000 years the universe became cool enough for atoms to form. The electrons in the atoms can only absorb specific wavelengths. This allows most of the light to pass by, making the universe transparent in most wavelengths.
So, it went from ions to atoms. This section also should not be named Reionization Epoch. The reionization happened later as the first stars converted atoms back to ions. Maybe reionization was confused with recombination, a word used for deionization.
I'll fix the section and add another one for the later reionization by stars.--BrendanRyan 01:29, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
I did the changes about deionization. I found that there was already a section that mentioned reionization by the first stars and galaxies.

[edit] No superscripts in TOC

Apparently the superscripts (exponential notation) in the headings don't show up in the Table of Contents, so you get: "The Planck Epoch: 10-43 seconds" "The Degenerate Age - 1040 years"

This is confusing. Of course nobody will be fooled for long, but it would still look better if there were something to distinguish it. Unfortunately, I can't think of any except "10^-43 seconds", which to most people would probably be even more confusing.

Any ideas?

Nickptar 01:37, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Big Bang and matter formation

The subsection, The Planck Epoch: 10-43 seconds, first sentence should be reworded to say: "..., and everything in it, could have possibly begun with the Big Bang...". I suggest this because it is not proven absolutely that the Big Bang is really the cause of the formation of the Universe. Note the fact that it is usually called the Big Bang Theory. Hoekenheef 21:51, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

This whole timeline is based on the Big Bang theory. If some other theory (divine creation, Steady State, some exotic stuff I don't know about) is true, then at least the entire early part and possibly the entire latter part are invalidated. Nickptar 22:38, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
So you're basically saying that since this is what the article is about it should be stated like that? (just clarifying) Hoekenheef 23:09, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
Pretty much. It already says "according to prevailing scientific theory", and I've clarified that this means the Big Bang. Nickptar 23:49, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
Okay, well then in that sense the phrase is fine so I will make no further inquiry about this. Hoekenheef 10:22, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

related question: what was in existence during the Planck Epoch? In a theory such as string theory, is it proposed that strings existed at the earliest times? --Memenen 03:18, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Are epochs moments or periods?

[edit] The Epoch of Nucleosynthesis: 3 minutes

The universe is too cool for nuclear activity to occur


The above is a contradiction, unless we assume that an epoch of 3 minutes means that it lasts 3 minutes or ends at 3 minutes. The sentence continues: "and at this point...", and a "point" is a moment. The Planck epoch alternates several times between being a moment or a (very short) period. I think someone who understands this better than I do, should decide if the epochs are moments or periods, and rewrite the epoch titles accordingly - for instance, "The Epoch of Nucleosynthesis: 1 second to 3 minutes". Art LaPella 23:01, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Merger

All the Big Bang information should be qualified and / or reduced. A neutral timeline of the various theory of the univers (BB, quasi-steady state, plasma cosmology, etc.) should be placed at this article. JDR 19:34, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

No. (cf. Talk:Big Bang, Talk:Plasma cosmology, etc...) Feel free to make a Timeline of Plasma Cosmology page, or Timeline of the quasi-steady state universe page. Why are you on such a rampage? –Joke137 19:36, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
Why is the NPOV policy bieing ignored?!?!? "Timeline of the Universe" is not a BB timeline ... you and other BB apologists are on a "rampage" to marginalized viable and competing theories along with POVing articles, sadly. JDR 16:10, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
Just a minute now. I have to agree with JDR on this one. That or rename this article Timeline of Big Bang Cosmology DV8 2XL 16:09, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
They already have Timeline of the Big Bang. JDR 16:12, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
Then this one should go as violating NPOV, and the other timeline articles started. -- DV8 2XL
Moved

All the information that was here (and was about the Big Bang) was moved to the Timeline of the Big Bang. JDR

I don't think this article is going to work as a non-Big Bang timeline, because there are too many incompatible stories to tell (see, e.g. cosmology). I think it should be a kind of gussied disambiguation page, with links to pages like Timeline of the Big Bang, Timeline of plasma cosmology, Timeline of Christian creationism, Hindu Timeline etc... –Joke137 01:41, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Definitely that's what should happen. It's going to turn into a confusing mess no mater how hard someone tries to keep it under control. DV8 2XL 16:55, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Article content moved to the Dating Creation/Timeline of Big Bang

This article as it stood was an article about creation dates according to different ideas. I can accept the fact that some may not like it being the Timeline of the Big Bang article, but we have to realize that the universe in common parlance is refered to as the Big Bang. We need to make an editorial decision at some point as to what qualifies as the universe and how it should be described. Do we pander to every so-called "skeptic" who thinks that the Timeline of geology is only 6000 years or so? --Joshuaschroeder 20:33, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes, as a mater of fact, an encyclopedia does 'pander' to various ideas. If it is notable it deserves a non-judgemental entry. No editor may arrogate him/herself the position of arbiter of what deserves mention and what does not. "the universe in common parlance is refered to as the Big Bang" - say what? 20:52, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
Common parlance of some scientists. This is not NPOV to redirect it to the BB timeline. JDR 21:52, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
In the article on the universe where does it indicate that we should be dealing with points other than those dealt with at the Timeline of the Big Bang and dating creation? I have no objection to making a disambig page here, but the "beginnings" point was best left for a different place. --Joshuaschroeder 21:10, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

I support the current redirect. As recently as three days ago, this article (Timeline of the Universe) consisted almost exclusively of the content now found at Timeline of the Big Bang. Now that its content has been merged there, the only logical choice is to redirect to the content's new home. To do otherwise would be to deceive the dozens of articles that have linked here. (In time, those links should be changed to explicitly point to Timeline of the Big Bang, but we should wait for the issue to cool down first.) In the last couple of days, some content has been added here that now lives at Dating Creation, but presumably few if any links to here were created during that period, so it makes sense to move that content without a redirect.Melchoir 21:22, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Just because there has been a bias history in dozens of articles that have linked here, that does not mean that this should be allowed. AND, the linked articles can and will be changed to the timeline of the BB if that is what they were trying to point to.

Also, if joshua would stop redirecting .... mabey a real timeline can be made. .... big articles are not made in one day nor one week ... and at time not in a month. BUT, many have grown over time. JDR 22:07, 22 November 2005 (UTC)


Sigh... it seems change has passed me by. What is it that you want, Reddi? Is this page going to become a conglomeration of all timelines ever proposed? Melchoir 21:36, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
To say that the "timeline of the universe" is the "timeline of the BB" is 'not NPOV. There are various timelines, religious and scientific. Joshuaschroeder is editing to make a point, clearly in violation of wikipedia's policies. JDR 21:52, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
User:Reddi has decided to revert any edit I make, no matter whether it is justified or not. See his RfC and his RfArb. --Joshuaschroeder 21:41, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
"Timeline of the Universe" isn't the most popular search phrase anyway, so the battle is somewhat void. As Universe can also seen as a term of philosophy or religion, putting all these dates in one table is only silly, not self-evidently false. But as en.wikipedia is the proud home of listmania-gone-wrong items like List of U.S. Presidents by height order, how much sanity can be asked for?
OTOH Timeline of the Big Bang is somewhat a silly lemma too, as the Big Bang in itself is the starting point of this timeline. What about Timeline of physical cosmology? And B.T.W. as Cosmology has become the umbrella article, why not just move the list of important dates in the universe according to all accounts I was able to google to that article.
Pjacobi 21:57, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for chipping in, Reddi and Pjacobi. Reddi, please calm down. Let me clarify my concerns. Our first, short-term responsibility is to protect the integrity of Wikipedia. There are some seventy articles that still link here, and when those links were made, they were intended to point to the content now found at Timeline of the Big Bang. I don't think anyone is arguing that we should move it back. Here is, I think, the best solution:
  1. For now, redirect to Timeline of the Big Bang for the reasons I've stated above and in my last comment.
  2. Wade through all the articles that link to this article and change them to point to Timeline of the Big Bang.
  3. Re-make this article into a glorified disambiguation page pointing to all articles containing a timeline of the universe, including Timeline of the Big Bang.
By the end of this process, everyone gets the content they want, and no one can complain about POV issues. Who's with me? Melchoir 22:12, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
Sorry, one last thing: I strongly oppose the creation of a Master Timeline that include all dates from all timelines of the universe. Since the various cosmologies involved are logically incompatible, the result would be meaningless. In any case, Reddi: if you really want to make such a thing, please try it during step 3 and not step 1. Quite frankly, once step 2 is done, I'll take this article off my watchlist. And, Pjacobi: the existence of List of U.S. Presidents by height order doesn't make all silliness okay, does it? Melchoir 22:28, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
It's only one of the bad precedents that I like to give in discussions about the ultimate faith of the Wikipedia. Category:Amputees also qualifies. An encyclopedia is not only defined by what it includes, but also by what it doesn't include. But this argument is lost on those, waiving the Wikipedia is not paper flag.
Sory for rant mode. --Pjacobi 22:38, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
I agree with your points, Melchoir. The article links directly from the Cosmology template for example and to insist that it remains in this form seems strange to me. --Joshuaschroeder 22:44, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Okay, step 2 is progress...

...and it's almost done. Special:Whatlinkshere/Timeline of the Universe hasn't quite recovered from the change to Template:Cosmology, so I'm not sure if there are more relevant links to hunt down. Melchoir 00:41, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Update: yeah, it's done. Melchoir 08:04, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../t/i/m/Talk%7ETimeline_of_the_Universe_2c04.html"