Talk:Graphical timeline from the Big Bang to the heat death of the universe

Physics Mid‑importance

	Physics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Astronomy Mid‑importance

	Astronomy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Astronomy, which collaborates on articles related to Astronomy on Wikipedia.AstronomyWikipedia:WikiProject AstronomyTemplate:WikiProject AstronomyAstronomy
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Double logarithmic scale

More info found at

Najro 22:19, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Misspelling

Someone spelled "galaxies" wrong...currently, it reads "galaxys." This is incorrect. Unfortunately, I couldn't find it in the edit box. Would somebody mind fixing this?

Appears to be fixed OK as of Apr 2011. Gierszep (talk) 01:22, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

made-up words

milliard is not a word, stop making it up

a milliard is a thousand million. You need a word like that in places where a billion is a million million. We don't do that in America, so we've never heard the word "milliard." You need to travel more. Co149 (talk) 21:56, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

add the Andromeda galaxy impact with the Milky Way

In about 2 to 2.5 Billion years the Andromeda Galaxy is going to turn the Milky Way into a scrambled egg and us with it. Some thing my school science teachers never mentioned. Probably didn't want to scare us kids. Problem is us adults don't seem to recognize it either. All those grand estimates of what a great long time our sun is gonna last won't matter much if the whole galaxy is scattered. Who knows maybe it'll throw us free of the black hole in the middle. If the one in the middle of Andromeda doesn't get us. Here's a link to the Andromeda Wiki that's just one of the sources for this information. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andromeda_Galaxy —Preceding unsigned comment added by Worthruss (talk • contribs) 23:37, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cannot squeeze it in here, too little space. Instead look at this zoomed in timeline: Graphical timeline of our universe. Najro (talk) 18:44, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Or this: Graphical timeline of the Stelliferous Era. Najro (talk) 19:13, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The main article on the merger states that "Such an event would have no adverse effect on the [solar] system and the chances of any sort of disturbance to the Sun or planets themselves may be remote." Also, it happens in 4 billion years, rather than 2 to 2.5 billion years. 68.100.254.108 (talk) 02:47, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The First Star

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) 03:00, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Exponents

I see that the article uses 'E' for exponent, for example 10E1000 for the ultimate date. The E format appears in a large number of programming languages, but in all of these languages, "10E1000" means "ten times ten to the one thousandth power", i.e. 10^1001. Options:

change to 1E1000
change to 10^1000
use superscripts, 10¹⁰⁰⁰

Preferences? Co149 (talk) 21:56, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to 1E1000 Gierszep (talk) 01:22, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Protons decay?

At the end of the Degenerate Era it says "Protons decay", resulting in evaporation of ordinary matter. I thought that decay of the proton has not been experimentally observed yet. Where does this estimate of the proton lifetime come from? --Chetvorno^TALK 23:02, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why do we use Julian year here?

It's inaccurate, and the Gregorian year is a bit more accurate. 80.98.179.160 (talk) 14:49, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Assumed Proton Decay

This has been an issue I’ve noticed in several physics articles and is often discussed in the talk section. Despite proton decay has never been observed, the way it’s worded and used on the main graphic implies that it *will* happen. The article should be modified so it clearly states that proton decay is purely theoretical or removed from the article entirely. The source of the quoted lifetime of a proton is unclear; I’d suggest it be updated to fit the current bound limits , based on the latest experimental data. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.106.91.140 (talk) 12:51, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge proposal

The Graphical timeline of the universe heavily overlaps, although it has something of a solar-system bias. Problems with the content have been identified over several years (see Talk:Graphical timeline of the universe), and perhaps consolidating the material in one place will help to improve the content more efficiently and avoid overlap. Klbrain (talk) 07:42, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Klbrain: Look at the source code for the 2 timelines. They are practically incomprehensible except to someone with a trained eye, and would be tedious in the extreme even for those with the skill to tackle it. (Otherwise, you or I would have done it by now).

If this proposal were approved, the Graphical timeline of the universe may continue to sit there indefinitely waiting for a technician capable of porting the data over, or it may be summarily redirected without an actual merge taking place (which would amount to deletion).

Therefore, I'm opposed to the proposal.

Perhaps a better course of action would be to focus on making the Graphical timeline from Big Bang to Heat Death comprehensive (or simply wait until that happens), and then redirect Graphical timeline of the universe for being obsoleted.

The initiative needed here isn't a merge proposal, but recruiting: for editors adept at graphical timeline development, and who have the patience for it.

Or you could speed up the process by nominating Graphical timeline of the universe for deletion at AfD for violating WP:CFORK, as the scope of the two topics are identical because the article titles are synonymous. If the result was "merge then redirect", it would fall to admins to implement it.

Cheers, — The Transhumanist 09:49, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My view is that AfD when you really want a merge is an abuse of process; we have a process for proposing merges, and that's what I'm using. Furthermore, admins don't implement AfD-merges, they just make a decision; any editor can do an AfD-merge, and it's usually someone active at WikiProject merge (like me!).Klbrain (talk) 09:40, 2 May 2024 (UTC) [reply]

Applying TNT, given the general sense that it is not (realistically) rescuable; added the redirect. Klbrain (talk) 16:20, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Recurrence

Under mostly the same assumptions as necessary for the heat death, recurrence of the universe‘s quantum state could occur after something like 10^10^120 years.

Thus recurrence would be the last event in the timeline and make it a loop. 185.104.138.32 (talk) 11:46, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]