Talk:Cosmos

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Physics (Rated Start-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Systems (Rated Start-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Systems, which collaborates on articles related to systems and systems science.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is not associated with a particular field. Fields are listed on the template page.
 
WikiProject Philosophy (Rated Start-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
 

The term kosmos[edit]

Sometimes the term 'cosmos' is considered to be only the observed universe, while the term "universe" refers to all that exists whether it has been discovered or not. 'Cosmos' is the "known universe."

Shouldn't the above be the other way around? Of course, traditionally, the universe contains all that exists, but in the modern usage of physicists, as opposed to the traditional usage, the universe is conceived of as containing less than everything, even if perhaps more than what is observed. Cosmos, on the other hand, is more of a theologians' or philosophers' term. Michael Hardy 01:28, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Agreed. Aequo 00:42, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
It may be the other way around in some context, but that information was taken from '50s, '60s World Book encyclopedia; that the cosmos was the "known" universe, and universe denoted everything that was, discovered or not. If someone has an older World Book encyclopedia collection, maybe look it up for reference, Wikipedia is about verifiability and sources. Nagelfar (talk) 08:18, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I made the change requested above, and removed the "disputed" tag. I hope that's ok. --Goethean 19:05, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I would think that originally kosmos meant (by Pythagoras) ordered and visible space. Ordered in the sense of mathematically structured. In this context cosmos is synonymous with the term universe as the modern physics see it. But then again universe is from Latin unus vertere (ie to turn into one) and this can be seen connected to greek term holon which means whole. So I would suggest that the first poster here is right making the distinction between cosmos and universe in the way he does. -- Aethralis 14:17, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Phenomenology?[edit]

"The term is used in phenomenology to describe the view of the world up until the rise of technology in the 20th century." This is interesting remark. Are there any citations for this statemant? In my opinion it is too broad and vague - it certanly does not apply to all phenomenology.

Ask User:Zorio 1. — goethean 14:59, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Carl Sagan[edit]

Carl Sagan is listed in the see also section, but not in the article. we need to add more info about him, and how he relates to the term cosmos.--Alhutch 05:36, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Citations?[edit]

In my opinion this is not good style and needs citations.

Some theologians use the term to denote the created universe, not including God. Many philosophers use the word "absolute", cosmos and universe synonymously to include all that exists. Physicists often use the word universe in a technical way, referring to a space-time continuum; see cosmology.

--Aethralis 11:16, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Cosmos as system[edit]

Reverted edits that defined cosmos as universe. Cosmos is definitely a "system" (closed or open). So we can speak about "inner cosmos" or the like. Universe has different connotations. -- Aethralis 09:46, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

That may be, but saying, "The cosmos is thought of as an orderly or harmonious system" does not actually define the term. It's like saying "The United States is thought of as a nice place to live" rather than "The United States is a country in North America" as the first sentence of the article on the US. I will rephrase the first sentence, attempting to retain the generality of the meaning. Strait 15:51, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

RandyS0725 14:55, 10 August 2006 (UTC)Couldn't the term also define, in terms of Greek mythology, the ordered Chaos, or galactic discord, after he mated with the goddess Caligo and fathered the first gods? That seems also probable.

Removing memetics category[edit]

I am removing the memetics category from this article since you learn no more about the article's contents from the category and v.v. Since so many things may be memes we should try to keep the category closely defined in order to remain useful. Hope you're okay with that. The link to meme would be enough I suggest. Facius 17:56, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Ken Wilber[edit]

What credentials Ken Wilber has that he has been listed as philosopher ? --Shashwat iitb 07:27, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

There is no such an established domain in philosophy as 'integral philosophy'. This section sounds like Ken Wilber's views promotion and should be deleted. --Open 2 (talk) 05:05, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating[edit]

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 09:46, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Pronunciation[edit]

Can we have a section with the IPA pronunciation please? Americans say cos-mows (with a long o as in most) and I wonder where this came from - its a Greek word and the Greeks say it with a short o (as in moss), as do most of the rest of the world. 81.129.135.62 (talk) 15:37, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Age and size of the cosmos[edit]

"The diameter of the entire cosmos (assuming Alan Guth's inflation theory to be valid) is thought to be at least between 10 decillion and 10 undecillion light years short scale (this is a lower bound)."

This, of course, is totally speculative and, as such, says all but nothing. But what else can you expect from a cluster of formulations such as "assuming theory xy" .."to be at least" .."is a lower bound" ..? It says nothing. The entire cosmos could very well be infinite in expanse. It could just as well be much smaller than the diameter given. This is and remains an open question. So why not write exactly that? It's unknown. Period. Zero Thrust (talk) 19:59, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I concur. I cannot find any resources that substantiate this claim. I am therefore modifying the article to reflect the above view. Siddharth Prabhu (talk) 08:31, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Alexander von Humboldt[edit]

Perhaps more reference to von Humboldt's contribution would be helpful? It was Humboldt who resurrected the word from the Greek in the 1850s. His conception of cosmos was, however, slightly different, and much broader, from today's. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.201.219.86 (talk) 10:14, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

The Nature of the Cosmos[edit]

Space


Space is a fabric that can bend, twist and is the fabric of the cosmos. With time it forms a 4 dimensional fabric named . The fact the speed of light which is the space traveled by light is the same for everyone whether moving or not shows that space-time adjust itself so light seems to travel at the same speed no matter what. Remember that space is a flexible fabric that contains the galaxies which are made of stars, planets that are very heavy objects. Their weight bend the fabric of space time which create a curvature that make it possible for lighter object to go around heavy object as it is the case for planet earth and the lighter weight moon; and also the planets and the sun in our galaxy. This phenomena is known as gravity which one of the four forces of the cosmos.


Time


Since space and time are unified the motion through space impacts time: time slow down for the person who is moving but go faster for the one who stands still; which implies that the passage of time as we experience it may be just an illusion. In that case, every moment in time from the beginning till far in the future coexist together; but in different region of the cosmos. That leads to the concept of time travel: due to the fact that space and time are a unified physical entity it is possible that there is some shortcuts in the fabric of space time that can lead us to another period of time different from our present time. Despise the possibility of time travel; there is no proof that we can change the past or even the future. The reason: the different periods of time coexist and have a fixed state. Still, the exact nature of time in not fully understood.


Forces of the Cosmos


General relativity: Einstein's theory of gravity; invoke curvature of space and time.[1]


Electromagnetic force: One of nature's forces; acts on particles that have electric charge.[2]


Strong nuclear force: Force of nature that influences quarks; holds quarks together inside protons and neutrons.[3]


Weak nuclear force: 'Force of Nature, acting on subatomic scales, and responsible for phenomena such as radioactive decay'.[4]


The last 3 forces exist at quantum level which is the atomic scale. The problem is that gravity is the force that happens at the astronomic level and atoms at the quantum level behave differently from the general relativity. With gravity, the nature of the cosmos is very predictable and ordered, however at the quantum level, the particle energy and position are unpredictable. For physicists, it is hard to fit order into the chaos that is happening at atomic level. At the quantum level, gravity force can be explained by the presence of a particle named graviton. This is a particle of energy released by the effect of gravity on the fabric of space-time. The only issue, no experiment has yet proved the existence of such particle. At the surface space is flexible, ordered but at quantum level it is active, unpredictable, and multidimensional.


The quest for unification

The goal is to combine all the laws in physics into one that can explain the whole cosmos from the outer space down to the quantum scale. Today, there is a popular theory named String theory that provides an explanation of the fundamental nature of the Cosmos.

SuperSrting Theory or String theory:Theory in which fundamental ingredients are one-dimensional loops(closed strings)or snippets(open strings), of vibrating energy, which units general relativity and quantum mechanics.[5]


The wave like behavior of the particles suggests that they are made of strand shaped like string at the most fundamental level. The shape of the energy strand determines what is a proton is and what is a neutron. In other words different shapes produce different particles. So far, it is just a theory because no scientific experiment supports or disproves the string theory.


Cosmos Defintion


According to the nature of the cosmos, it can be defined as followed:


Ordered system of all that exist from outer space down to the atomic scale.

References[edit]

  1. ^ Brian, Greene. The Fabric of the Cosmos: Space, Time, and the Texture of Reality. Vintage Books, 2004, p. 538.
  2. ^ Brian, Greene. The Fabric of the Cosmos: Space, Time, and the Texture of Reality. Vintage Books, 2004, p. 538.
  3. ^ Brian, Greene. The Fabric of the Cosmos: Space, Time, and the Texture of Reality. Vintage Books, 2004, p. 540.
  4. ^ Brian, Greene. The Fabric of the Cosmos: Space, Time, and the Texture of Reality. Vintage Books, 2004, p. 540.
  5. ^ Brian, Greene. The Fabric of the Cosmos: Space, Time, and the Texture of Reality. Vintage Books, 2004, p. 540.


Greene, B. (1999). The Elegant Universe: Superstrings, Hidden Dimensions, and the Quest for the Ultimate Theory. W.W. Norton, New York

Greene, B. (2004). The Fabric of the Cosmos. Knopf Doubleday Publishing Group.Cite error: The <ref> tag name cannot be a simple integer (see the help page).

Hawking, S. W. (2001). The Universe in a Nutshell. Bantam Book.

Yulsman, T. (2003). Origins: The Quest for our Cosmic Roots. Institute of Physics Publishing, London.


Chloe-NJITWILL (talk) 23:32, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

this is a mess[edit]

I see the following possibilities

  • decide that the primary use is synonymous with Universe and redirect there
  • decide that "cosmos" as relating to the Universe usually concerns questions of Cosmology and redirect there
  • decide that there is actually a concept (ancient philosophy, theology) that can be discussed as distinct from "Universe" and "Cosmology" and write an actual article
  • turn this into a disambiguation page

--dab (𒁳) 08:22, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree that it's a mess, and that a radical change would be better; I'd favor redirecting to a disambiguation page (I would guess more people are searching for info on the TV show or book than as a synonym for universe), and would oppose redirecting to Cosmology. However, getting this through an "Articles for Deletion" process to make it a redirect seems unlikely...people will google "cosmos", see 22,800,000 matches, say "yep there's a cosmos", and vote to keep. If there is some distinct concept of cosmos, and there very well may be, an article could be justified, but this article, with just two citations, both dictionaries, currently doesn't make that case. Agyle (talk) 06:35, 18 February 2014 (UTC)