![]() | Chronology of the universe received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which on March 2005 was archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article. |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||
This page has archives. Sections older than 360 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
The image im Chronology shows Inflation which - while it does explain the fine adjustment problem underlying the flatness of space - is by its nature of taking place before recombinant an unfalsifiable hypothesis and is not part of the standard model. PixelRayn ( talk) 11:52, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
For the Hubble and Webb telescopes to be able to detect radiation from over 13 billion light years away then the dark or ordinary matter that our galaxy is made from must have already existed at or near that distance from the origin of the universe when those early galaxies started forming.
If this is not the case then the universe must have expanded about 13 billion times faster than light else that radiation would already have passed us billions of years ago never to be detectable again.
What am I missing in my understanding? 86.15.61.16 ( talk) 16:08, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
The following:
"At about one second, neutrinos decouple; these neutrinos form the cosmic neutrino background (CνB). If primordial black holes exist, they are also formed at about one second of cosmic time. Composite subatomic particles emerge—including protons and neutrons—and from about 2 minutes, conditions are suitable for nucleosynthesis"
This implies the first emergence of nucleons was after one second.
Later, the Tabular Summary says that hadronisation will occur at 1e-5 seconds and 150 MeV. This is much earlier than one second; the 150 MeV value is consistent with the article "Color Confinement" which states the Hagedorn temperature corresponds to 130 to 140 MeV.
Spope3 ( talk) 05:11, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
The article is suitably referenced, with inline citations. It has reliable sources, and any important or controversial material which is likely to be challenged is cited.According to this the article does not meet the criteria.
Links in the "External links" section should be kept to a minimum. A lack of external links or a small number of external links is not a reason to add external links.
There is nothing wrong with adding one or more useful content-relevant links to the external links section of an article; however, excessive lists can dwarf articles and detract from the purpose of Wikipedia. On articles about topics with many fansites, for example, including a link to one major fansite may be appropriate.
Minimize the number of links. -- Otr500 ( talk) 16:57, 27 February 2023 (UTC)