Talk:Timeline of the Big Bang

Contents

1 Asking for a merge 1.1 Let's get 'er done 2 bigbangisdeliciouscosito 2.1 External Link 3 CP violation 4 10-48 seconds? 5 Grand Unification Epoch expansion factor? 6 i'm pretty sure the currently observable universe is larger than the Planck length 7 This isn't true 8 Should we merge this with Timeline of the Universe? 9 Should we merge this with Timeline of the Universe?

Asking for a merge

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)

bigbangisdeliciouscosito

I'm not sure who is more confused. The person asking the question or the person answering the question.

External Link

• Did the Big Bang create primordial black holes? (http://www.windows.ucar.edu/tour/link=/kids_space/primordial.html&edu=high)

---

Should we rename this page: "timeline of the early universe"?

you have my vote. -- looxix 10:02 Apr 11, 2003 (UTC)

Me too -Lethe | Talk

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?

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)