Talk:Graphical timeline of the Big Bang

Add topic
Active discussions

Graphical timeline of the Big BangEdit

Is the picture supposed to be labeled "logaritmic time"? Methinks not.

This picture looks nice, but it is rather bare in its description. There are large chunks of the graph listed in which nothing happens. Might it be better, perhaps, to split the picture into separate portions, with each portion linking to different area of the timeline of the Big Bang article? --Modemac 14:51, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This is a fabulous depiction that may be overlooked by a lot of people who don't understand how to read it. Since it is a logarthmic scale, it really represents how long something happens. For example, inflation occurs over an epoch that's one hundred times the local age of the universe. This means that if inflation were scaled to our timeframe it would be occurring over a trillion years or so. The beauty of this time line is if you understand logarithmic scaling than you can get a feel for the immense amounts of time all of these processes took place over. This perspective gets obscured by people who think in absolute terms and rely on the first three minutes as a "short" period of time, when really it represented the majority of the universe's history. --ScienceApologist 16:23, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Epoch of NucleosynthesisEdit

Surely the epoch of nucleosynthesis is 100-300 s or so, as per Big Bang nucleosynthesis? Why is it being labelled as covering most of the first 300,000 years? Or is my brain melting again? --Bth

Can anyone explain how the elements were formed? Jake200493 (talk) 16:08, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

A lot of the descriptions of the epochs in their individual wiki pages are inconsistent with the timeline here. This ought to be ironed out. --207.171.180.101 21:02, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Timeline voodooEdit

Wow, I just made some epochs into links, no actual text edits, and now all looks more compressed and distorted. :-S I wish I knew how the <timeline> tags actually worked, or at least why it turned into that from making text into simple links. -- 213.113.67.150 03:57, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

A while back an admin made a change to the way the text is generated on the timelines so now whenever they are created the text (especially inline links) isn't generated correctly.—Mike 02:16, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

ScaleEdit

This scale is confusing. Why use "10*log time" rather than "log time"? E.g. the Planck epoch is at 10^-43 seconds, marked as "-430" on the scale. This would be less confusing if the scale was "-43". This is especially apparent because I followed a link from Timeline of the Big Bang. Axl 22:03, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I don't see any disadvantage to using log time. Gmarsden 23:51, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
I think "10*log time" scale is used because the timeline feature does not allow bars or labels to be located at non-integer points on the scale (see [1]), and so a "log time" scale would mean that labels such as "one hour", "one year" etc. could not be placed accurately. If there is a work-round that still allows labels to be placed accurately, then I agree a "log time" scale would be clearer. Gandalf61 09:32, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
It seems to me that a lot of people are baffled to start with, myself included, and there is absolutely no difference whether we mark a point as 1 or 10, that is log 10 or 10*log 10. All the numbers marked are integers (mantissa=zero) and somebody ought to take the bull by the horn and change the scales! Gandalf61, you are authorised. The integer explanation does not sound right either, unless you count zero as an integer, because that appears in the present scale as well. Nobody can ever locate the label lines accurately. Accuracy depends on the width of your pencil nib. In any case, how can we argue about an hour when we are talking about eons? LouisBB (talk) 23:07, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Regretfully, I have to withdraw my comment (above) , reconsidering and realising that there is indeed a programming problem which does not seem solvable. LouisBB (talk) 06:10, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

On 17th October 2006, an anonymous user noted that the label is misspelt "logaritmic". Can one of the graphics experts correct this, please? Axl 22:09, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Done. Gandalf61 21:40, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
RE the scale - can someone just put a strip of white covering up the labels on the scale? Its not an elegant solution, but it works. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.173.6.67 (talk) 22:04, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

The First StarEdit

It is listed that the first star formed 100 million years after the Big Bang. I have a source from Space.com that says the first star formed 155 million years after the Big Bang, can we use this source.

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/first_star_011115.html Maldek (talk) 02:41, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

See comment at Talk:Graphical timeline of the Stelliferous Era#First Star. Najro (talk) 18:46, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Possible error??Edit

Currently says strong forces seperates from electronuclear at -360. Should be seperates from electroweak. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.177.70.5 (talk) 22:04, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Correction requiredEdit

Having seen the latest Planck (spacecraft) pictures (see one below) it seems to me clear that our graphic is incorrect after around 380 000&nsbp years after near as we can get to zero time on a logarithmic scale from when time was born. Our diagram tells us that the universe was dark, and calls the period up to about 100 million years dark ages. The photos of Planck shows that from around 380 000&nsbp years photons were escaping freely, we were in a jumbled up mess, yes, but nothing like dark.

File:PLANCK FSM 03 Black.jpg
The sky is shining bright

Let us get updated by the experts. LouisBB (talk) 03:50, 13 August 2010 (UTC)





Merge this article into Timeline of the Big Bang?Edit

Any reason this article shouldn't be merged into Timeline of the Big Bang? There seems to be space in that article for the graphic. --ChetvornoTALK 20:02, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Because it has a huge timeline section, that makes it hard to edit articles? Or that there are several such graphical timelines, like Graphical timeline from Big Bang to Heat Death ? Or Graphical timeline of the universe ? 70.24.248.211 (talk) 14:25, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
I agree that this timeline would be out of place in Chronology of the universe (formerly Timeline of the Big Bang), but isn't it redundant to Graphical timeline from Big Bang to Heat Death? What purpose does this article serve that isn't already covered by the larger graph? DoctorKubla (talk) 13:09, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Redshift/Scale factorEdit

Hello! It would be nice if the redshift/the scale factor would be given as an additional time axis....dont you think? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.240.190.125 (talk) 18:22, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Merge to Graphical timeline from Big Bang to Heat DeathEdit

Isn't this article redundant to Graphical timeline from Big Bang to Heat Death? What purpose does this article serve that isn't already covered by the larger graph? I've said this already on this talk page, but this time I'm making it an official merge proposal. (I don't think a merge is actually necessary - a redirect would be more appropriate - but this is the best way of stimulating discussion.) DoctorKubla (talk) 13:40, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Not the same - Heat Death is its own theory above and beyond big bang that is excepted.Moxy (talk) 23:47, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
But the graphs are the same. The graph on this page is exactly identical to the first half of the other graph, except with logarithmic time instead of double logarithmic time. DoctorKubla (talk) 07:19, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
I agree but Heat death of the universe is just one of the possible outcomes of the end of the universe - in fact its one of the theories that currently does not hold to much merit. We could remove the big bang section and just leave the heat section....but we would need others to get involved as the article has been stable for so long in its current state.Moxy (talk) 17:54, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
Okay, I see what you're saying now. You're right, a better solution would be to turn the other graph into a "Timeline of the Heat Death scenario". I'll see if I can get any consensus for that; either way, merging isn't the answer. I'll remove the tags. DoctorKubla (talk) 06:58, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

The Heat Death is a possible outcome for end of universe. However there are many possible outcomes beside that, so we can't merge these 2 unless these 2 theories are entirely dependent of one another. Byronchen150199 (talk) 06:47, 6 September 2012 (UTC)