Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If I had a good math mind, I could do this myself but I have not and the books get confusing because they start in one direction with ages and then switch to the opposite direction - forward from the Big Bang toward the Present and then suddenly backward from Present toward Big Bang, never bring the two to a meeting point.
Is there a time line of the universe either from the Big Bang to the Present or from the Present to the Big Bang somewhere online? In round numbers, of course; I do not know that. I just want one consistent line all the way.
If I had a good math mind, I could do this myself but I have not and the books get confusing because they start in one direction with ages and then switch to the opposite direction - forward from the Big Bang toward the Present and then suddenly backward from Present toward Big Bang, never bring the two to a meeting point.
Is there a time line of the universe either from the Big Bang to the Present or from the Present to the Big Bang somewhere online? In round numbers, of course; I do not know that. I just want one consistent line all the way.
Please and thank you.
Hi Hazel. Below is a chronology that lists epochs (or periods) of the Universe starting with the Planck epoch and brings it up to the Present. The Planck epoch begins after the exact moment of the Big Bang. Currently, the moment when the Big Bang began is unknown. Part of the reason we can't go back further is because if we knew that, we'd know the conditions that enabled the Big Bang to bang and we'd understand conditions that preexisted the Big Bang. All we really know is that something happened that was effective enough to generate conditions that led to the formation of the entire universe as we know it today. Anything preexisting the Big Bang is presently beyond our knowledge and experience.
The chronology below also lists some of the best known scenarios about the ultimate fate of the universe in the future. These scenarios are speculative but reasonably potential options as to how the universe might end. Once again, we are faced with not really knowing exactly what will happen because we don't really know yet what the fundamental nature of the universe is. Any one of these future scenarios could be true, or some other outcome that's completely different and unknown to us could develop. The more we learn about the universe, the weirder as well as amazing it seems to be.
Thank you both. I'll go to that site. And, no, wasn't trying to go pre-Big Bang. Just go straight between Big Bang and Present. An article I was reading last night started out with different happenings occurring so many years "after the Big Bang". Then it suddenly switched to so many year "ago". I am having difficulty making those two time scales meet.
Whatever I do, the time for the Milky Way doesn't fit but I think I just found out the why of that. More reading to do there. I've been reading some fascinating articles recently, some with new ideas from authors and some just new to me. A fascinating study, isn't it?
I appreciate the link. Shall see that after lunch.
About 13.7 billion years ago, something happened. We refer to it as the Big Bang, but can't be certain what it was. Many scientists accept the Big Bang as a beginning, others do not. A problem with the Big Bang, is it's a cause without an effect. The classic Big Bang is something from nothing, which defies most physics. To help explain some of the very early universe, expansion is invoked. Expansion is something that only happened very early in the Universe, many are searching for evidence of expansion. Recently some claim to have found evidence.
Regardless, most of the Universe is made of dark energy, then dark matter. They are called dark, not because they are dark per se, but because we don't know what they are. Thus most of the Universe is a mystery. What if anything existed before the Big Bang is currently beyond our understanding.
We are left to accept a Big Bang, expansion, and a Universe expanding at an increasing rate.
A problem for our understanding of the Universe is at very small sizes, a different quantum physics is used. For larger things, we use general relativity. General relativity is for the most part (excepting black holes, dark matter, dark energy, and the Big Bang itself) more or less well understood. Quantum physics, is less well understood, in part as behavior of particles which are best defined by this physics are counter intuitive. Very small particles do not seem to have much gravitational effect, this causes time to be a bit more elusive when studying them. Also quantum sized particles can frequently behave as probability waves when nobody is looking, and as particles when observed. The result is depending on how you are viewing an experiment, different results can be measured, one for particles one for waves (see quantum slit experiment) as an example.
It is possible, the Universe may not resolve to particles without an observer. As such, for our Universe to exist as anything other than a probability wave, it may require observers. Worse, it may require intelligent observers.
My opinion is the Universe is beyond our comprehension, we can only see that which is visible to us, and that which makese sense to us.
About 13.7 billion years ago, something happened. We refer to it as the Big Bang, but can't be certain what it was. Many scientists accept the Big Bang as a beginning, others do not. A problem with the Big Bang, is it's a cause without an effect. The classic Big Bang is something from nothing, which defies most physics. To help explain some of the very early universe, expansion is invoked. Expansion is something that only happened very early in the Universe, many are searching for evidence of expansion. Recently some claim to have found evidence.
And therein lies my uninformed protest. To our feeble minds, you can't have something from nothing unless you accept creationism. Even then, I think you still have the same problem from a different angle. In addition, you can't have an ending without a beginning. Could it be that our minds are limited at a point beyond which they cannot go? Not yet.
It is amazing what the astronomers are learning even though they leave us with that same basic problem. From whence came that original gas? Could that be why some believe there are other universes out there feeding ours? But from where did the first one come?
Greatest mystery story we have. And we are left to figure it out for ourselves.
And therein lies my uninformed protest. To our feeble minds, you can't have something from nothing unless you accept creationism. Even then, I think you still have the same problem from a different angle. In addition, you can't have an ending without a beginning. Could it be that our minds are limited at a point beyond which they cannot go?
No, that's just your lack of understanding in Science. I mean that with a big heart and no ill will. Quantum mechanics dictates you can get a Universe from nothing. I'm sure you can go to YouTube and view "A Universe from Nothing" by Lawrence Krauss. It's the best laymans explanation. If you have questions on it, just ask them here.
In fact, our Universe *is* nothing. It has a total net energy of zero. Nothing. Nada. Zilch.
Does this mean there is no creator? No. Does it mean there is a creator? No. It has nothing to do with any faith or religion or spiritual belief. Science is about what we can observe and repeat, not what the Bible says. Science has nothing to do with religion. Creationists seem to want to worry and wonder about the Bible, and it conflicts with Science. You have to be your own judge and think critically about your conclusion. Science isnt here to help you with that, it's just here to tell you what is.
No, that's just your lack of understanding in Science. I mean that with a big heart and no ill will. Quantum mechanics dictates you can get a Universe from nothing. I'm sure you can go to YouTube and view "A Universe from Nothing" by Lawrence Krauss. It's the best laymans explanation. If you have questions on it, just ask them here.
In fact, our Universe *is* nothing. It has a total net energy of zero. Nothing. Nada. Zilch.
Does this mean there is no creator? No. Does it mean there is a creator? No. It has nothing to do with any faith or religion or spiritual belief. Science is about what we can observe and repeat, not what the Bible says. Science has nothing to do with religion. Creationists seem to want to worry and wonder about the Bible, and it conflicts with Science. You have to be your own judge and think critically about your conclusion. Science isnt here to help you with that, it's just here to tell you what is.
++Well, I'll be!!!!! All right. I'll just change my pronoun from 'we' to 'i'. That works better? I'll try that video. And, no, no ill will at all. I have no science background other than a lesson in eighth grade which I am sure even the teacher wished she could forget. I'd say "for a smile let me share this" but what happened does not merit a smile as I am sure you will agree. Here it is:
Remember that this was a few years before WW II. The teacher stood there and said, "Some people think they can split the atom but they are wrong. The atom is the smallest unit in the universe and cannot be split." Shades of 6 August 1945?
Normally, I'd not have even remembered her saying that but circumstances imprinted it on my mind "forever". And, of course, that was the general opinion back then. Only a few thought otherwise. Never say never.
++Well, I'll be!!!!! All right. I'll just change my pronoun from 'we' to 'i'. That works better? I'll try that video. And, no, no ill will at all. I have no science background other than a lesson in eighth grade which I am sure even the teacher wished she could forget. I'd say "for a smile let me share this" but what happened does not merit a smile as I am sure you will agree. Here it is:
Remember that this was a few years before WW II. The teacher stood there and said, "Some people think they can split the atom but they are wrong. The atom is the smallest unit in the universe and cannot be split." Shades of 6 August 1945?
Normally, I'd not have even remembered her saying that but circumstances imprinted it on my mind "forever". And, of course, that was the general opinion back then. Only a few thought otherwise. Never say never.
Thanks again. I appreciate the teaching.
Yea, it takes a long time for todays Science to get into tomorrows classrooms. It's a big complaint of mine. Kids should learn relativity in high school. Not the full mathematics of it, although that'd be nice, but at least the general concepts.
Todays big discoveries are next generations common knowledge. We need to shorten that time period......
Yea, it takes a long time for todays Science to get into tomorrows classrooms. It's a big complaint of mine. Kids should learn relativity in high school. Not the full mathematics of it, although that'd be nice, but at least the general concepts.
Todays big discoveries are next generations common knowledge. We need to shorten that time period......
That was quite a lecture. I am going to have to listen to it again, maybe two agains. A lot I didn't understand. But repetition is good. I especially like the closing. Interesting what the coming generations will see and know.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
