Difference between revisions of "2240: Timeline of the Universe"
Linkhyrule5 (talk | contribs) m (Running gag enforcement) |
m (Fix typo) |
||
Line 39: | Line 39: | ||
The dashed lines coming off the end of the timeline represent the possible fates of the universe: | The dashed lines coming off the end of the timeline represent the possible fates of the universe: | ||
− | * The universe could stop expanding and begin contracting, resulting in the {{w|Big Crunch}}. In our universe, cosmological measurements have shown | + | * The universe could stop expanding and begin contracting, resulting in the {{w|Big Crunch}}. In our universe, cosmological measurements have shown that the expansion of the universe is accelerating, so the Big Crunch is considered to be the least likely fate. |
* The universe could eventually settle into thermal equilibrium, which would leave no energy available for any interesting phenomena to occur. This is called the {{w|heat death of the universe}} or "Big Freeze". | * The universe could eventually settle into thermal equilibrium, which would leave no energy available for any interesting phenomena to occur. This is called the {{w|heat death of the universe}} or "Big Freeze". | ||
* The universe's expansion could continue accelerating to the point that the accelerating expansion overcomes all forces between particles, turning the universe into a collection of particles isolated from each other by rapidly-expanding space. This is called the {{w|Big Rip}}. | * The universe's expansion could continue accelerating to the point that the accelerating expansion overcomes all forces between particles, turning the universe into a collection of particles isolated from each other by rapidly-expanding space. This is called the {{w|Big Rip}}. |
Revision as of 02:30, 12 December 2019
Timeline of the Universe |
Title text: Not actual size, except technically at one spot near the left. |
Explanation
This explanation may be incomplete or incorrect: Created by the BIG BANG. Should include a list of the events, their times, and if they're real, explain what they are, and if they're jokes, explain what they are. Do NOT delete this tag too soon. If you can address this issue, please edit the page! Thanks. |
This comic is about the size of the universe, presented as a timeline. Some events on it are real, but others are jokes. The size history of the universe is also embellished for the sake of jokes; the actual size history of the universe has one period of inflation shortly after the Big Bang, followed by comparatively gentle but accelerating expansion. This is artistically depicted in this image from NASA.
The title text is a mathematical joke, based on the Intermediate Value Theorem (IVT). Note that the actual size (A) of the universe is zero at the Big Bang (time t = 0), while the corresponding size of the comic (C) is positive (the shape there has a small but nonzero thickness). Thus, A(0) - C(0) < 0. Also, the actual size of the universe at the present day is larger [citation needed] than the corresponding size of the comic. So we have A(present) - C(present) > 0. Assuming the sizes of the universe and the comic are continuous [citation needed], by the IVT, there exists a time u in the interval (0, present) such that A(u) - C(u) = 0. Noting such a time u is likely reached very quickly after the Big Bang, it is represented close to the left of the comic. Hence, technically, Randall is correct.
The events presented in the timeline are:
- ?? (more than 13.8 billion years ago (Gya)): the unknown state of the universe prior to the Big Bang, if such a statement is even sensible (is it possible to be "south of the South Pole"?).
- Big Bang (13.8 Gya): The model of the origin of the universe which has achieved consensus among astronomers. We have observed that all galaxies are receding away from Earth at rates that are roughly proportional to their distance, and the simplest explanation for this is that the universe is expanding. If the universe is expanding, then (unless new physics are discovered) it must have at one time been very, very small and dense; that moment in time is called the Big Bang.
- Planck Epoch: The time period starting with the Big Bang.
- Medium Bang (a joke): If there's a Big Bang, why not have medium one? There should probably also be a Little Bang, but maybe it's just too little to be featured on this chart.
- Inflation (10^-36 to 10^-32 seconds after the Big Bang): A theory developed to explain the large-scale structure of the universe that postulates a period when the universe expanded faster than the speed of light
- Quark Epoch (10^-12 seconds after the Big Bang): The universe is a quark-gluon plasma, up until 10^-6 seconds when it cools enough to coalesce into hadrons, including protons and neutrons.
- Lepton Epoch (1 second after the Big Bang): Leptons, including electrons, and their associated neutrinos dominate.
- Photon Epoch (10 seconds after the Big Bang): The universe is dominated by photons.
- Cool Bug Epoch (possibly a joke): There was a period around 10-17 million years after the Big Bang in which the cosmic background radiation was between 273 and 373 K, the temperature range for liquid water. Cosmologists have speculated that primitive life could have arisen during this period and dubbed it the 'Habitable Epoch of the Early Universe'.
- Molded grip (a joke): Some tools (e.g. knives) have molded finger-wells so that the user's hand settles easily and securely into a comfortable position. This epoch of the universe features repeated expansions and contractions so that this part of the timeline resembles a molded grip, at least in profile (it would be much too large to be held by any known animal's hands)[citation needed].
- Stars form (100 million years after the Big Bang): The universe cools enough to allow ordinary matter particles to group into stars.
- Stagflation (a joke): In addition to cosmic inflation, inflation can also refer to the economic phenomenon in which prices increase over time. Stagflation is combination of the terms "stagnation" and "inflation", and refers to a situation in which monetary inflation is high, economic growth is slow, and job creation is low. This epoch of the universe shows the universe beginning to contract in size, much as economists would talk about an economy contracting.
- Settling (a joke): Perhaps the universe has been very busy, and needs a rest.
- Rebound (a joke): Rest time is finished.
- Someone tripped and accidentally hit the "Inflation" switch again (a joke)
- Emergency Stop triggered (a joke)
- Galaxies form (12.8 Gya)
- Earth forms (4.5 Gya)
- Present day
- Future cosmological development handed over to J.J. Abrams, outcome unknown (a joke): J.J. Abrams is a science-fiction writer and filmmaker. If he were in charge of the future development of the cosmos, he might decide to subject all of us to some strange plot twist. Among many other movies, he has directed the 2009 reboot of Star Trek, in which the "future history" of Star Trek is altered from the timeline of the original series by Nero and Spock traveling backwards in time.
The dashed lines coming off the end of the timeline represent the possible fates of the universe:
- The universe could stop expanding and begin contracting, resulting in the Big Crunch. In our universe, cosmological measurements have shown that the expansion of the universe is accelerating, so the Big Crunch is considered to be the least likely fate.
- The universe could eventually settle into thermal equilibrium, which would leave no energy available for any interesting phenomena to occur. This is called the heat death of the universe or "Big Freeze".
- The universe's expansion could continue accelerating to the point that the accelerating expansion overcomes all forces between particles, turning the universe into a collection of particles isolated from each other by rapidly-expanding space. This is called the Big Rip.
Transcript
This transcript is incomplete. Please help editing it! Thanks. |
- Timeline of the Universe
- ??
- Big Bang
- [The Universe comes in as a circle with action lines around it. It stays the same size for a while.]
- Planck Epoch
- Medium Bang
- [The Universe starts inflating very slowly]
- Inflation
- [The Universe briefly inflates very rapidly, and returns to its normal rate of expansion.]
- Quark Epoch
- Lepton Epoch
- Photon Epoch
- Cool Bug Epoch
- [The Universe starts inflating and deflating rapidly, as if to form a grip.]
- Molded grip
- [Stars appear in the timeline. The Universe starts inflating slightly faster than before.]
- Stars form
- Stagflation
- [The Universe starts deflating slowly.]
- Settling
- Rebound
- [The Universe starts inflating slowly again.]
- Someone tripped and accidentally hit the "Inflation" switch again
- [The Universe starts inflating at the same rate as the Inflation section.]
- Emergency Stop triggered
- [The Universe abruptly stops inflating, and stays level.]
- [Galaxies appear in the timeline. The Universe starts inflating at a medium pace.]
- Galaxies form
- Earth forms
- Present day
- [We see the edge of the Universe, with a rounded shape. Various dotted line predictions are on the edges.]
- Future Cosmological development handed over to J.J. Abrams, outcome unknown
Discussion
"Cool Bug Epoch" reminds me of the last panel in 1493 and 2191, but it's probably coincidental.--GoldNinja (talk) 19:44, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
- Reminds me of Cool Bug Fact's DPS2004'); DROP TABLE users;-- (talk) 20:02, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
"The title text is a mathematical joke, based on the Intermediate Value Theorem (IVT)... Hence, technically, Randall is correct." that is assuming that the universe didn't start from anything bigger than this comic. ̶P̶h̶y̶s̶i̶c̶i̶a̶n̶s̶ Physicists, discuss! (okay, fine. philosophers can join too) OtterlyAmazin (talk) 20:41, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
- Even with antialiasing, the intrinsically granular nature of the graymap representing a sub-pixel measure, at any given perpendicular point of the scale at any given device's DPI. I wouldn't put it past the Universe to have skipped-through the gap between values. ...on the other hand, if we get into Big Rip territory, perhaps the effective DPI of any extant representation will pass back through a coincident value. 162.158.34.202 22:09, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
- The models predict the universe to be smaller than a grain of sand even after the inflation so of course the observable universe was at some point smaller than the line width of this drawing and so he is correct. There is no mathematical joke. Randall often jokes about not actual size, but notices that there one point on his graph will actually have been at the actual size. Which is impossible to say, but yes it was probably between inflation and Quark epoch. I have changed the explanation to cover this. --Kynde (talk) 14:47, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
I notice that the events along the top are mostly sensible, while the events at the bottom are mostly not. 108.162.249.220 23:08, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
- Naah that is not so evident. Below there are three correct and 6 wrong and above it is 2 wrong vs 7 correct. So yes most of the incorrect is on the bottom side, but that seems more like a coincidence, since there are wrong and right on either side. --Kynde (talk) 14:47, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
It would be good if this clarified whether the diagram of the growth itself is correct and just badly mislabeled, or if it doesn't even correctly show the size of the universe over time. Gaelan (talk) 00:24, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
- No, this is not the actual diagram, which is a much smoother regular bell shape without the sharp pointy left end. We also don't really know anything about the starting point beyond wild conjecture, as there's lots of uncertainty in the cosmological model, no matter what anyone says. Ianrbibtitlht (talk) 03:08, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
While the explanation mentions the dashed lines for the future fate of the universe, it only lists 3 possibilities, even though there are 4 sets of dashed lines in the diagram. It's possible that the outermost dashed lines represent another mistaken inflation button press. Ianrbibtitlht (talk) 03:16, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
- Have added notice of all four lines to the explanation. Feel free to improve my version of the explanation on them. Agree that one of them could be the idea that the inflation switch was pushed again. --Kynde (talk) 14:47, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
Hey, methinks the title text maybe referring to the lesbegue measure(which for a point is zero) since we are talking about sizes.--Jassi101 (talk) 08:21, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
- No need to invoke complicated math to state that when something expands from zero size to universe size then at some time it must take on any value in between, and thus also fit on this comics drawing. --Kynde (talk) 14:47, 12 December 2019 (UTC) <--- not true if you allow a couple expansions via the higher-order dimensions, then the universe pops back into 3-D with a zero-time-lag & thus a genuine discontinuity without even any Gibbs Overshoot. Cellocgw (talk) 20:12, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
The explanation of the title text is now long and complicated and, for me, hard to follow. Couldn't we just say something simple like this? "Randall's universe diagram is always at least one pixel thick. But the universe started much smaller than one pixel and expanded to the size it is today, so at some time instant it must have passed through the size of Randall's diagram -- making the diagram 'actual size' at that instant." Wouldn't something simple like this be better? I'd do this myself but I'm leery of deleting a lot of other people's writing. DKMell (talk) 20:29, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
Google ads
Note: This topic is contained in a separate Talk page and was transcluded into the talk pages of new comics. This is to maintain a single discussion on the ads which affect all of explain xkcd. Click the "[edit]" button above to add comments about ads. --NeatNit (talk) 22:20, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
When looking at the article page, I'm seeing several Google ads splashed across the full width of the article space, breaking it up randomly and making it more difficult to read (it sometimes interrupts the Transcript, for example, and also randomly crops up in the already-hard-to-read Discussion box). It looks awful. Is anyone else seeing them? I understand that ads are needed to pay for Explain XKCD's server costs, but they're really detrimental to the article. Hawthorn (talk) 13:13, 28 October 2019 (UTC)- Yeah, I'm seeing them, too, and I agree. ExplainXKCD is one of the few pages on my AdBlock white list. Please don't make me reconsider my decision. Elektrizikekswerk (talk) 13:47, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
- Thank you for creating the new section. Yes, not only am I seeing them invade the text, but invade the text three times with the same advert. Perhaps we need a new tag to make room for advertising 172.68.174.22 13:59, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
- I've added a tall screenshot of this to the right. Just from the thumbnail it's easy to see how disruptive it is to the page. --NeatNit (talk) 21:06, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
- Oh, yours have images? Mine don't - they're just big white blocks with some text in them (which I think is even more disruptive since they are harder to distinguish from body text). But still, yeah, absolutely not a fan of this at all. It makes the site feel incredibly tacky. Hawthorn (talk) 21:34, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
- Yes I also see them with pictures and it is horrible. :-( Will try to see if making a Admin requests will help... --Kynde (talk) 10:34, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
- I'm not seeing them in the explanation - Maybe they fixed that? - but like FOUR times in the comments, which seems excessive. It seems less obtrusive than as described here - and shown, thanks NeatNit - but it still seems disgusting. They should keep them unobtrusive, like they've always been on the side. NiceGuy1 (talk) 05:17, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
- I find it interesting that this Ad topic block is appearing on multiple comics (I saw it on 2221, where I added my other comments, then 2222, now this is 2220, and I see the same comments, including mine). I also find it interesting that after I left each comment on 2221 - between the comic's comment section and this one, like 8 edits or so, I kept finding things to say or corrections to my comments - I refreshed the page to see my edit show up, and after a couple I stopped seeing ads. Either there's a daily quota or it remembered that I closed each ad? Maybe a combination? NiceGuy1 (talk) 05:51, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
- The topic showing up in multiple comic discussing is my doing - because this topic affects all of explainxkcd, I want to make sure it's always visible in the latest comic. I used wiki transclusion to do this. The discussion is actually held in Talk:2220: Imagine Going Back in Time/Ads and is inserted (transcluded) in all the other talk pages. --NeatNit (talk) 12:50, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
- Oh, then may I say Way to go! I completely concur, this is an ongoing topic. (Though the ads seem gone now, at least for me) NiceGuy1 (talk) 05:11, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
- Since the ads seem gone now, it seems like this section can stop being added to every new comic (though in my opinion it should remain on the relevant comics that were published during this dark time, I think 2220 until like 2225 or so...) NiceGuy1 (talk) 05:35, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
- The topic showing up in multiple comic discussing is my doing - because this topic affects all of explainxkcd, I want to make sure it's always visible in the latest comic. I used wiki transclusion to do this. The discussion is actually held in Talk:2220: Imagine Going Back in Time/Ads and is inserted (transcluded) in all the other talk pages. --NeatNit (talk) 12:50, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
- Yes I also see them with pictures and it is horrible. :-( Will try to see if making a Admin requests will help... --Kynde (talk) 10:34, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
- Oh, yours have images? Mine don't - they're just big white blocks with some text in them (which I think is even more disruptive since they are harder to distinguish from body text). But still, yeah, absolutely not a fan of this at all. It makes the site feel incredibly tacky. Hawthorn (talk) 21:34, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
- I'm only seeing 1 ad, always (regardless of which comic's explanation I'm seeing) after the second paragraph, always with pictures. The existence of the ad doesn't annoy me as much as the fact that it'll sometimes load after I've already read past that point, pushing the text I am reading down. --162.158.123.103 16:47, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
- Click the X and report the ads for reason "Ad covers content". Maybe they'll even do something about it! 108.162.246.59 16:54, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
- The thing is, that looks more like a complaint against the particular ad. Even picking "covers content" I get a response "Okay, we'll try not to show this ad any more". My objection isn't to the particular ad, it's to the EXISTENCE and PLACEMENT of the ad. I don't care what's IN the ad, it shouldn't be there at all! I accept the evil necessity of ads, just don't shove them down my throat, encouraging more people to use the ad blockers the obnoxious sites always whine about. NiceGuy1 (talk) 05:17, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
- NiceGuy1 is correct. The complaint button is against a single advert, not against the advert block placement. It's not unlike filling a complaint against a business renting a billboard because you have a problem with where the billboard is placed. The business renting the space has no control over where the billboard is. 172.68.38.64 04:35, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
- The thing is, that looks more like a complaint against the particular ad. Even picking "covers content" I get a response "Okay, we'll try not to show this ad any more". My objection isn't to the particular ad, it's to the EXISTENCE and PLACEMENT of the ad. I don't care what's IN the ad, it shouldn't be there at all! I accept the evil necessity of ads, just don't shove them down my throat, encouraging more people to use the ad blockers the obnoxious sites always whine about. NiceGuy1 (talk) 05:17, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
I'm not seeing these ads right now, have they been removed entirely? --NeatNit (talk) 12:41, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
- I don't see them anymore either. Only the one on the left below the navigation bar remains, which has always been there and doesn't bother me. Bischoff (talk) 07:42, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
- Ok, never mind. After I posted this and went back to the page the ads are back as well. Bischoff (talk) 07:42, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
- All I see are the letters "Ads". Seems my Firefox blocks it. --162.158.91.71 13:57, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
- Ok, never mind. After I posted this and went back to the page the ads are back as well. Bischoff (talk) 07:42, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
I do not see any additional adds, but some additional linebreaks in between the pages, which fit the places described by those, seeing adds. Using Chrome on a company computer... So I do not know what exactly the settings are, but generally it does not block adds. (I even see the lunarpages add on the left) --Lupo (talk) 12:26, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
Last Wednesday (6 to 7 days ago), according to the time stamps on my previous comments above, I was seeing 4 or 5 ads in a rather short comment section (which went away after a few refreshes after a few comments). Now I see none. Maybe whoever turned them on saw the negative reaction and turned them back off? Or maybe they only needed a quick cash injection and turned it off after they got what they needed, LOL! NiceGuy1 (talk) 05:07, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
- They indeed seem to have vanished. Elektrizikekswerk (talk) 14:42, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
I'm going to stop adding this conversation to new comics for the time being, because it seems like the ads have gone. It's weird though; no admin has commented on this. If you still see ads, let me know! --NeatNit (talk) 05:37, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
- I removed this from the talk page for all but the first comic after it was first posted (as on that page there where also discussion on adds) --Kynde (talk) 15:04, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
- Seems like there are no admins active at the moment... --Kynde (talk) 15:04, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
I still have areas on parts of some pages (e.g. in the discussion part of 1109 from time to time, which are according to the inspect tool, frames for google adds. They either cover part of the text, so I cannot click/mark it (what I often do to find the line I am reading in easier, or just to have my hand busy), or they create big interuptions of the text. --Lupo (talk) 10:57, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
December return of the ads
The horizontal ads are back. Noticed some on 2227 and decided to report back to this thread that the issue has not fully ended. ChessCake (talk) 13:47, 4 December 2019 (UTC)- Yes, I got them too. Also in the past weeks I got containers/placeholders in some places, which, according to the inspecting tool, where also for adds. Since today or yesterday they are fillign with adds again. --Lupo (talk) 13:52, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
- I'm seeing them too. Ahiijny (talk) 14:48, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
- The top-level div for one of those ad elements has class
google-auto-placed ap_container
. Possibly related: https://techcrunch.com/2018/02/21/google-debuts-adsense-auto-ads-with-machine-learning-to-make-placement-and-monetization-choices/ https://wpadvancedads.com/adsense-in-random-positions-auto-ads/ https://stackoverflow.com/questions/51183831/prevent-adsense-auto-ad-from-showing-ad-in-specific-area Ahiijny (talk) 14:56, 4 December 2019 (UTC)- Yup, they're back... I've transcluded this page in the latest comic's discussion page, and I've added a new screenshot here (more disruptive than the one Ahiijny showed). I've also made a comment on User talk:Davidy22, hopefully he'll receive an email about that. This stinks. --NeatNit (talk) 23:35, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
- Yes they are back with a vengeance. Sadly it seems neither Davidy or Dgbrt are active anymore or replies to any messages written on their pages. They are the two last admins that have been active here. But Davidy has not been for more than two years (2017) and it has been some times since Dgbrt was active (march 2019)... PS I'm not an admin, just very active ;-) --Kynde (talk) 14:35, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
- Yup, they're back... I've transcluded this page in the latest comic's discussion page, and I've added a new screenshot here (more disruptive than the one Ahiijny showed). I've also made a comment on User talk:Davidy22, hopefully he'll receive an email about that. This stinks. --NeatNit (talk) 23:35, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
- The top-level div for one of those ad elements has class
- I'm seeing them too. Ahiijny (talk) 14:48, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
As of today, I am seeing fullwidth ads, but only in the talk page space. Aside from the usual sidebar ads, the rest of the explanation page doesn't have any. --Aaron of Mpls (talk) 21:45, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
After being fixed again, it now appears that users are seeing the erroneously placed ads again. Not a very nice April Fool's joke... ProphetZarquon (talk) 14:20, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
I've just started to get some huge ads that basically take up my entire screen. Have we gotten any updates at all? Opalmagpie (talk) 02:59, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
I've got full-width ads in the discussion box, but nowhere else, which is interesting, and also FLIPPING ANNOYING! Darn it, those ads are taking up the discussion box and I hate it. (Note: Just really noticed the ads) Sarah the Pie(yes, the food) (talk) 23:20, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
I have spotted video advertisements on the website. I fear this issue is only getting worse with time now. If this isn't just me, we should probably start to insert this back into new comics' Talk pages. ChessCake (talk) 18:54, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
Notified Jeff, he checked the ad settings for the wiki, and the broken ads should finally be fixed! I went and checked a few pages, and I don't see the ads appearing in random positions anymore. Hopefully this concludes the issue. Herobrine (talk) 00:08, 13 May 2021 (UTC)