Talk:Timeline of cosmological theories

Untitled

Copyright Permission to modify and distribute this and other timelines originally developed by Niel Brandt have been granted to wikipedia. See Talk:Timeline of transportation technology

Question

Anon User:204.56.7.1, can you explain why you prefer the phrase "determine the presence of" to the single word "discover"? --Blainster 28 June 2005 22:32 (UTC)

Separate question: Aryabhata is stated in this article to have written about heliocentrism, yet the wikipedia article about him clearly states his views were geocentric. contradictory... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FEA8:A2A0:C17:0:0:0:4 (talk) 15:00, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Removed "beginnings"

I have removed the beginnings section which does not belong here. Leave that stuff to the Timeline of the universe. Joshuaschroeder 29 June 2005 15:08 (UTC)

No ... because that is a Timeline of the universe according to the big bang! JDR 19:23, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

According to the timeline Oskar Klein developed the ambiplasma theory both in 1950 and 1971. I suppose it is a mistake?

Discounted Ambiplasma theory

Perhaps you'd be kind enough to explain why the following entries are inaccurate:

• 1965 - Hannes Alfvén proposes the ambiplasma theory to explain baryon asymmetry.
• 1986 - Hannes Alfvén proposes the Plasma Universe in which plasma plays a more significant role in shaping the Universe"

And perhaps you'd be kind enough to provide the source for your statement, which shows that ambiplasma has been discounted. --Iantresman 18:54, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I see no objection to the facts of the article here. Place a fact tag if you think something is incorrect. --ScienceApologist 18:57, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

• You didn't add a fact tag to my statements, you just stated that the edits were inaccurate, (though presumably you meant the resulting statements, rather than the process of editing).
• So I ask again, (A) how were the two statements above inaccurate (b) Where is the citation to your statement? --Iantresman 19:25, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I will not respond to this baiting. --ScienceApologist 20:07, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

"Baiting" usually means an attempt either to make the target angry or to trap the target in an inaccuracy. Which do you think Iantresman has in mind? I see only a request for clarification, in the spirit of science. But since I don't know anything about plasma perhaps I'm missing a backstory; was Alfvén embroiled in some scandal? —Tamfang 00:38, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Briefly, the backstory is that ambiplasma is part of non-standard cosmology, one of Wikipedia's most bitter ongoing edit wars. Art LaPella 03:58, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

• I accept all that. But the criticism levelled was not that Alfven was contentious, or incorrect, but that the statements were inaccurate. Note that I didn't add the statements in the first instance, but ScienceApologist added the "discounted" judgement [1]. As far as I can tell, it's the only judgement made of all the other entries. The Steady State theory is listed, but not described as "discounted", and if it was, I am sure I can find a citation. Ptolemy's Earth-centred Universe is not showing as "discounted" (but I'm sure I can find a citation).
• So I still trying to find out why the statements lists were deemed inaccurate (I can find citations for them as they stand), and if there is a citation for the amended "discounted" statement. --Iantresman 09:18, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Found my way here via WP:3O, although it appears that more than two users are currently involved. Personally, given that other discounted theories are listed, I'm not sure why this one would be removed. It doesn't seem to be a question of validity, but rather of notability. I'll readily admit a lack of familiarity with the subject matter, but given that the two items in question have lengthy articles, as is, it seems prudent to assume that they bear some notability. Perhaps, as a compromise if no agreement can be reached, one could be included, the other excluded? Just food for thought. Luna Santin 09:04, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

• I'll agree that both ambiplasma theory and the Plasma Universe are not the most well-know theories (in particular ambliplasma). My main quibble was not their notability, but querying the suggestion that their inclusion was considered inaccurate as described, and unveriable as amended.
• That said, I think that Plasma Universe is more notable than ambliplasma theory, the latter being a minor part of the former. --Iantresman 17:54, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Ambiplasma is much better known in the cosmological community than plasma cosmology. It represents a clever suggestion about baryon asymmetry that is still an open question. Plasma cosmology, on the other hand, represents the kind of "flash in the pan". --ScienceApologist 20:03, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

ScienceApologist, you still haven't had the courtesy to answer my questions above concerning the apparent inaccuracy of the statements shown, and provided verification of yours. --Iantresman 20:12, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

timeline of cosmological theories

This sort of confusion crops up all the time. Someone is looking for the history of the big bang, creation of atoms, etc, only to find that he is looking at the history of the THEORIES about these matters. This should be cleared up in every case. Myles325a 08:38, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Did you find this at the bottom, or are you suggesting it be stated more prominently? "See also Timeline of the Big Bang" Art LaPella 20:36, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, I see that somebody else has already raised the very issue I want to address: namely, the title of this article is misleading — and should be altered to more accurately reflect the contents. I think Myles325a was trying to suggest that the proper title would be Timeline of cosmological theories. If there are no objections, I will make that change in a few days. For the time being, I will put a link at the top for folks who drop by looking for something else. Cgingold 10:55, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Hoyle and Big Bang

1950 - Fred Hoyle derisively coins the term "Big Bang".

The page on Hoyle says that it was not meant to be pejorative. Any thoughts? Gmarsden (talk) 05:57, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it was pejorative: F. Hoyle, in a conference, introduced G. Lemaître as the "big bang man" to make fun of its universe theory. Hoyle has been unfortunate on this expression since it went to be popular! RockSolidCosmo (talk) 08:38, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh I Get It

So from the 9th through 15th centuries, only Arabs gave a crap about cosmology. Glad I came to this article. Jersey John (talk) 22:33, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Please consider the Astronomers Burdidge expansion/contraction U

68.188.203.251 (talk) 14:36, 21 June 2013 (UTC) The astronomers Burbidge advocated in the face of extreme opposition for an expanding/contracting universe. To see their effort negated by absence on all Wiki sites is distressing. How rewarding for the remaining living Burbidge to have this denied recogniton restored! http://books.google.com/books?id=Loc9DNew2FEC&pg=PA289&lpg=PA289&dq=expansion/contraction+of+Universe+Burbidge&source=bl&ots=u4SKWBM-7i&sig=N7zOjD9vh6XR6qn-OaPyR8feuDk&hl=en&sa=X&ei=QWXEUcb8LsagywHmsIHgCw&ved=0CC8Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=expansion%2Fcontraction%20of%20Universe%20Burbidge&f=false — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.188.203.251 (talk) 15:04, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Editing Help

Hello,

I need help with the following: I'm trying to combine this links (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmology) section 3 with this links (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_cosmological_theories) information. I keep on getting confused and muddling it up...

Can someone help me with this please?

(Russell.mo (talk) 17:47, 31 October 2014 (UTC))

Please update with: summarized info about history of a) multiverse b) simulated & holographic reality c) semi-simulated reality d) cyclic universe theories and e) quantum or ToE-related progress

This timeline is missing info about whole core domains of theories:

• Multiverse
• Simulated reality and holographic reality
• Semi-simulated reality (like Diminished Reality) and/or metalevel theories about cosmology and its/related assumptions such as cosmological data being nonmanipulated and unfiltered/complete
• Cyclic model theories
• Things like summarized/major events of history of loop quantum gravity, interpretations of quantum mechanics (like recently Quantum darwinism), quantum gravity & quantum cosmology

Each should have at least one entry with a wikilink. It would be best if the most major progress in these fields (at least the Multiverse one) would have an entry and/or if there was an item summarizing progress in their fields for each

Highly detailed entries wouldn't be due here, at least as long the more detailed, less major items can't be filtered away and the timeline is as short as it's currently. So the following would probably be too detailed for a separate item but could be included in the proposed multi-event summary-type item added for every section (as a brief mention with refs with the details for the interested).

Other than that they'd be more suited for potential sub-articles like Timeline of multiverse theories, albeit such may be better structured by topic rather than chronologically (as the respective articles mostly already are; it's also useful to be able to have a chronological view and/or a view that highlights recent changes).

The following are relevant items from 2022 in science (info is also at the respective articles):

A study presents a mechanism by which the hypothesized potential dark-energy-explaining quintessence, if true, would smoothly cause the accelerating expansion of the Universe to inverse to contraction, possibly within the cosmic near-future (100 My) given current data. It concludes that its end-time scenario theory fits "naturally with cyclic cosmologies [(each a theory of cycles of universe originations and ends, rather than the theories of one Big Bang beginning of the Universe/multiverse, to which authors were major contributors)] and recent conjectures about quantum gravity".

A study shows how a Twin-world models cosmological model – already extensively studied to find out why gravity appears much weaker than other known forces – could explain the Hubble constant (H₀) tension via interactions between the two worlds. The "mirror world" would contain copies of all existing fundamental particles. On 2 May, another twin/pair-world or "bi-worlds" cosmology is shown to theoretically be able to solve the cosmological constant (Λ) problem, closely related to dark energy: two interacting worlds with a large Λ each resulting in a small shared effective Λ. Previous similar models e.g. attempt to explain the baryon asymmetry – why there was more matter than antimatter at the beginning – with a mirror anti-universe.

Note that items, especially the most recent ones, could later be merged with other items, replaced, removed, extended or revised.

Once there are ≥ 1 items per year, this timeline could be added to the box at the top of 2022 in science and the template at 2022. One could also, for example, transclude most recent items in (a separate section in) articles like Cosmology or in some way (e.g. in a collapsed template) at Portal:Physics.

Maybe I'll also add a notification to Talk:Cosmology about this.

a) - e) are all major fields/types/instances of cosmological theories so they should be integrated somehow here.

References

Prototyperspective (talk) 11:21, 8 August 2022 (UTC)