Talk:Universe/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

Regarding the spoken Version

The spoken version of this article is NOT computer generated, but human read by myself. Marmenta (talk) 04:03, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

The Universe is NOT everything that exists

Sorry I tried to create an account but couldn't. So I commit to staying with this for however long it takes and will be open on this, I will do the research and the maths and help the project but:

The Universe is not everything that exists and Websters is incorrect in this, that this is obvious to me is a fundamental weakness of wiki. I will help fix this starting now as well.

We are now speaking openly about Multiverses and about gravity being unwrapped beyond the 'observable' Universe. So the 'Universe' is becoming the everyday 'observable universe' meaning 'non observable universe' is something else.

So we are growing into a nomenclature issue. In that the world, used to be the universe, but the universe is not, in everyday usage, now believed to be all that exists.

It seems to me that baryonic matter and associated non baryonic matter that is affected by the observable universe (or the inverse), is what we call now the universe.

So to be partially clear. Before the big bang is not the Universe (am I right), wrapped forces with no interaction in the observable universe are not in the universe. Dark matter interactions with other forces that are unwrapped in dark matter mulitverses but don't exist in any observable fashion in our universe are not in our universe.

So a better definition would be that the universe is all that exists and is observable, but that things that interact with our universe but are not observable (i.e. cannot be quantified in force interactions) are not in our universe, because their interactions are in our exoverse or mutliverse, but if a higgs boson has 80% of its interactions in another universe then it is not fully in our universe. OK and to lighten the tone, this does not include David Letterman. I know this is arcane but I am good (very very very good at maths), but lazy and I do believe that only about 200,00 people of all the people who have ever existed will understand this post. I also believe that the David Letterman element will reduce it to 50,000. However that is the wrong 50,000, how do we fix that there problem Pierse?

I suggest that the Universe is not all that exists, and we bound it in the same way that we bounded Ptolemy's map, as a definition of the extent of existence that was exceeded by our knowledge. Three quarks for Muster Mark. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:02, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Interesting, but it really doesn't matter. We don't include original research, nor information for which we cannot find a reliable source. You were right to ask here on the Talk page, though--thank you. — UncleBubba T @ C ) 01:41, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
The idea of a "multiverse" is already discussed in this article. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 03:34, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
Do you have a source for all this? Pass a Method talk 11:33, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
The multiverse hypotheses (they are not "theories") have been around for years. In a way, they are like religion--since, to date, they cannot be observed. Even the magazine article Pass a Method cited used words like "may", "possibly" and "potential". Sure, some smart folks might find a way to prove the existence of parallel universes but, to be reported here, it needs to be a fact, covered by reliable, secondary sources.
Also, the mention of "various multiverse theories" should read "various multiverse hypotheses", since multiverse research hasn't yet risen to the level of "theory", or general acceptance, as in Theory of Gravity or Music Theory. — UncleBubba T @ C ) 20:19, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
For better or worse, theory and hypothesis should be used as they are from the sources, if any.—Machine Elf 1735 00:59, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
None of this matters. the WORD universe means 'ALL in ONE' or 'turned into one' where the ONE is a representation ove EVERYTHING so the universe is by definition EVERYTHING. anyone that says that the universe is not everything does not understand the entomology of the word. so here it is :) Δρ∈rs∈ghiη (talk) 13:15, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Language changes over time. Your claim about the word "universe" is exactly the same as claiming that there can't be anything smaller than an atom, since atoms are indivisible by definition. That was the original meaning of the word atom, but it no longer is. Now atom means something along the lines of "smallest chemical building block" or somesuch odd definition. The path of the word universe has been the same. From the original "all that is" to the current "that place where we live". — Gopher65talk 13:47, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Getting back to the original subject of this thread, are we satisfied with the coverage of multiverses in this article? I feel that, with a section already devoted to the hypothesis, the article has quite enough about multiverses, and would probably be even better off without Tegmark's idle computations of the probability of doppelganger universes 1010115 meters away; a pretty trivial addition even in this arcane field. --ChetvornoTALK 14:42, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

The difficulty of defining universe

First of all I'm not sure of this has ever been discussed and didn't bother looking in the archives first. The reason I added "known existence" is because of the ideas of multiverses and alternate dimensions. In this view, our universe is just one of many and not the totality of all existence. Technically, would these other universes and dimensions not be considered to "exist" or are they simply not part of our existence? However, adding "known" may also discount things we have never directly observed but which we hypothesize may exist within the universe such as dark matter, dark energy, exotic matter, etc. Has any consensus ever been reached on a definition? Cadiomals (talk) 21:10, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

There are as many definitions of "universe" as there are people discussing it. By all means dig through the archives; I'm sure you'll find quite a few fascinating positions. Constant adjustment, adding of caveats, removing of caveats, tweaking, and so forth is why the lede eventually settled back on to a dictionary quote for its first sentence. The second sentence (at the time of my edit) noted other variants of the definition and gave citations for those too; the first definition wasn't presented as the only one, no worries.
Rather than returning to the old days of constant changes, let's cut to the chase and have an RFC about what the lede's first-paragraph text should be, and ping the various relevant wikiprojects to ensure sufficiently broad coverage. I'll even do the legwork for setting it up, if you want. Does this sound like a reasonable approach to the two of you who have been adjusting it so far? --Christopher Thomas (talk) 22:32, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
I tried removing the weasely "commonly defined as" and it was reverted. All articles are about the common definition. The only purpose of those words is to be weasely. Saying "<topic> is commonly defined as <definition>" is just a stupid way of saying "<topic> is <definition>". If there are variations on the definition then list them after the first sentence. Bhny (talk) 22:54, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
As has been repeatedly emphasized above, there are a huge number of different definitions of "universe". If all of them were listed after the first sentence, the intro would be longer than the current article. Using "commonly defined as" is not weaselly, it's used in such situations to limit the lead section to the most notable definition(s), leaving less important ones to be covered in the article. --ChetvornoTALK 01:11, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
"commonly defined as" isn't used in well written articles. Bhny (talk) 03:15, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
And there's nothing wrong with writing an article about a single definition of the topic. There can always be another article "Universe in context of Multiverse" or whatever. If we really need to be inclusive then the definitions have to be in the lead. It can't have absurd waffle like "Definitions and usage vary..."! That tell doesn't help anyone. Bhny (talk) 03:25, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
Since the article has a whole section covering various variations of the definitions of the concept of "universe" and their nuances, and the lede should reflect the content of the article, the "commonly defined as" phrase is completely warranted. It communicates to the reader that this definition is not set in stone and that the article will also cover variations. Note, that since a lot of the variations are rather subtle it is not viable to have separate articles on each variation.
Also, blanket statements like "XXX isn't used in well written articles" are not used in well argued discussions. ;-)
TR 10:15, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Τα όρια του σύμπαντος

Τα όρια του σύμπαντος

Αν πάρουμε ως δεδομένο ότι το γνωστό-άγνωστο σύμπαν έχει όρια αυτά τα όρια θα ήταν η απόλυτη τιμή ψύξης -273,15 C στην περίμετρο του,η οποία δεν έχει καταγραφεί πουθενά εώς τώρα στην αστροφυσική. Αυτά τα όρια εάν κατέρρεαν στο χωροχρονικό συνεχές με μιά μορφή εναλλασόμενης ή συνεχές συχνότητα αυξανόμενης ενέργειας τότε μοναχά δεν θα είμασταν εξαρτημένοι στον χωροχρόνο μας επειδή το υλικό-άυλο φώς αντανακλά και συνάμα φθείρει τα τείχη των -273,15 C.

Ουσιαστικά όμως εάν αμβλύνεται το σύμπαν μέσω της ίδιας ενέργειας που το διακατέχει τότε αμβλύνονται και τα όρια ..

Το ερώτημα όμως που μένει αναπάντητο είναι υπάρχουν όρια στα τείχη?

Η φυσική και η αστροφυσική μας αναφέρει πώς υπάρχουν όρια σε ότι περιορίζεται στο χώροχρονο και βάσει αυτού του χωροχρόνικου σύμπαντος δύναται να καταρρεύσουν και τα όρια των τειχών του..

Όμως άραγε πώς θα ήταν η ζωή μας χωρίς την εξάρτηση του χώρου? Βάσει της σύγχρονης φυσικής αυτό θα λεγόταν θάνατος ή κατάργηση των ύλικο-άυλων ενεργειακών σωμάτων. Με μιά άποψη θα έλεγα πώς η ζωή μας θα ήταν άπειρομεγενθυμένη στον άπειρο χώρο μας μέσα στον χρόνο επειδή το σύμπαν ρέει και έρεε για κάθε μορφή ενέργειας ενώ συνάμα δεν έπαψε ούτε και παύει ποτέ να υφίσταται απο την άπειροαρχή της δημιουργίας αυτού.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:47, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Your talk about—best I can tell—"The Limits of the Universe" really doesn't belong here. This Talk page is for discussion of the universe ARTICLE, not the universe itself. Also, please remember this is the English Wikipedia; discussions should generally be in English, not Greek.
Thanks! — UncleBubba T @ C ) 19:51, 21 October 2012 (UTC)


My recent edit was an accident. I did not even know I had visited the page--JimWae (talk) 04:38, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

The universe is mysterious Bhny (talk) 17:36, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

93 billion light years in diameter - really?

The statement that the Universe "is believed to be at least 93 billion light years in diameter" is not a factual statement about the universe; the statement that the Universe "is at least 93 billion light years in diameter" is not adequately supported by the reference (or anything else); neither statement belongs in the article. Dr5t3v3 (talk) 08:38, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

The reference literally states: "Today diameter of the observable universe is estimated to be 28 billion parsecs (about 93 billion light-years)."TR 12:22, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Exactly - estimated by who? Is there a citation? The reference is not a research article, or research of any form. It is pure opinion. Dr5t3v3 (talk) 02:42, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

The source is a textbook, which is a perfectly acceptable reliable source. Textbooks rarely give citations for the facts they present. That does not make the facts they present "pure opinion". Given the time frame, the estimate in the book is probably based of the WMAP 5 year data.TR 15:23, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Within the Big Bang model, how can the diameter of the universe be greater than about 27.5 billion lightyears (i.e., radius = age of universe from centre at speed of light)?? Unless expansion occurred faster than the speed of light???--Jeffro77 (talk) 04:09, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

It did. See Inflation (cosmology). — HHHIPPO 07:34, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
I think you probably mean cosmic expansion rather than inflation - inflation was a specific phase in the very early universe. The key point is that the light or other radiation that we observe from the furthest visible objects (which ultimately means the cosmic microwave background radiation) was emitted 13.7 billion years ago, but during that time the universe has expanded so those objects are now about 46.5 billion light years distant, giving the observable universe a diameter of approximately 93 billion light years. So, yes, the space between us and the most distant objects is expanding at a rate that is numerically greater than the speed of light (although the two quantities are not really comparable). Gandalf61 (talk) 11:57, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. I also had a read of Faster-than-light#Universal expansion earlier.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:05, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Interesting point to add...

I'm not able to come up with a way of phrasing this that would seem to fit into this article, but I have found an interesting point that may be worth mentioning:

The point of the article is that new research on the Higgs Boson seems to suggest that the Universe may eventually collaps in on itself, or ultimately be destroyed billions of years in the future. Again, I think this may be worth noting. Additionaly sources will be needed. -Poodle of Doom (talk) 19:15, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

It's not that it will collapse in on itself in the classical sense, it's that a nucleation point could form, inside which the universe would to jump to a lower, more stable energy level. The nucleation point would expand outward at the speed of light, so a single "tear" wouldn't be enough to "destroy" the universe as we know it. — Gopher65talk 00:27, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
Still, wouldn't this be something relevant to add to the article? At that, you can see that my understanding of this isn't necessarily enough to add the point to the article. -Poodle of Doom (talk) 03:14, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
I'm no expert in theoretical physics, but is this related to False vacuum#Vacuum metastability event? And since this page already links to Ultimate fate of the universe anyway, maybe this point should be mentioned in either one instead of here. Reatlas (talk) 07:41, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
Yeah. My understanding of this work is that if we're in a false vacuum (probably are), a nucleation event is more likely than previously thought. — Gopher65talk 22:51, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, the placemeant of the newly found info in the above mentioned articles would be better. However, I think it should be lightly alluded to here. -Poodle of Doom (talk) 05:02, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Unsolved problems

The sentence "Physicists remain unsure about what preceded the Big Bang model and also the ultimate fate of the Universe" in the lede has multiple issues:

  • What preceded the Big Bang model is not the question here, it's what preceded the Big Bang.
  • It remains unclear if the second part (and also...) refers to what preceded or to unsure about.
  • Physicists is unclear: some of them? all of them? How about non-physicists, are they sure?
  • The question is actually a bit broader: it's not only what preceded the Big Bang, but first of all if preceding is a well-defined concept at all at that point.

The previous version, "What preceded the gravitational singularity before the Big Bang and the ultimate fate of the Universe remains an unsolved and speculative problem in physics", was in some respects better, but also had its issues:

  • Talking about a gravitational singularity before the Big Bang is a bit questionable.
  • Problems are not speculative, answers are.
  • It would be nice to link to List of unsolved problems in physics, but that page doesn't mention the preceding the Big Bang part.

Here's a suggestion for another rephrasing: "What, if anything, preceded the Big Bang, and what will be the ultimate fate of the universe remain unsolved problems in physics." Any thoughts? — HHHIPPO 17:51, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

I disagree.
  • If we remove "model" we are not being specific enough
  • "Physicists" as worded gives a general perspective
  • Gravitational singularity is unproven
  • We should speak about physicists not physics. Pass a Method talk 19:18, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
The sentence is poorly constructed at best, misleading at worst. It needs to be reworded. 04:11, 15 May 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gopher65 (talkcontribs)
  1. Why is it unspecific? What else could it be confused with? Using the phrase "big bang model" is like prefixing every use of gravity and evolution with "the theory of".
  2. Physics is an academic discipline, which physicists study. How exactly is "physicists" more general than "physics"?
  3. Has been removed.
  4. This is the same as number two. Reatlas (talk) 14:53, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

I broke it into 2 sentences. I think it reads much better. I removed "model" as this is logically wrong. What preceded the "Big Bang Model" was another model (Solid State?). Bhny (talk) 15:22, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

I can live with the new version, but still think physics would be better than physicists: it's not only physicists who wander about this question and are unsure what's the answer, it's also laypeople. So the statement is at least incomplete. If one interprets physicists as meaning all physicists, then it's also wrong: there are physicists who also are creationists and they feel pretty sure they know the answer. Of course one could also interpret it as some physicists, that's the 3rd problem: ambiguity. Unsolved problem in physics avoids all that. There's a reason we have an article List of unsolved problems in physics, but not List of things physicists are unsure about.
P.S.: Bhny, I guess you mean steady state, not solid state ;-) — HHHIPPO 18:38, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
haha yes Bhny (talk) 20:18, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Semantics: the "Universe" vs. a "universe"

This isn't a big deal, but I think it would be a good idea just to throw in a line about how the Universe is a proper noun that is capitalized if one refers to the universe in which we live. This contrasts with a "universe" which is a hypothetical or model cosmological object, such as the theory of there being more than one universe. PirtleShell (talk) 22:07, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Just a small mistake

It's actually, nothing, and I'm really sorry, I must come off as a miss "know-it-all", but I just want to tell you that, you've made a mistake with the translations. To be precise, in the "etymology, synonyms and definitions" section, in the third paragraph, where you say "Related terms were matter, (τὸ ὅλον, tò ólon, see also Hyle, lit. wood) and place (τὸ κενόν, tò kenón)." you are a little bit wrong. "τό κενόν" in greek, actually means "the vacuum" and it was used to describe... well, non other but the vacuum of space. What you're looking for is "χώρος" which is the exact translation of "place" (in physics)
Again, sorry to bother you :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:00, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

"universe" common usage means EVERYTHING, so no "multi-verses"

i think whoever talks about multiple universes is violating the spirit of the word, since it is designed to indicate everything. those other aspects would merely be a subset of the universe, and referring to them as 'other universes' is a horrible description. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:20, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

I kind of agree but unfortunately our opinions don't matter and we just have to go with our sources Bhny (talk) 22:48, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
Yes, like it or not, the word "universe" may be losing its connotation of "everything" and becoming associated with "our" contiguous section of spacetime, governed by our physical laws and the Big Bang theory. If other "universes" are a serious possibility, we need a word to distinguish them from our "universe", hence "multiverse". This is not an unusual situation in science, when names lose their original meaning. Before modern astronomy, didn't the term "Earth" or "World" originally mean "everything", just like "universe"? Now it just means our planet, one among many. --ChetvornoTALK 09:32, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

"the observable universe, is about 93 billion light years in diameter"

Are you all sure about that? The universe is just 14.3 billion years old so I believe there is a typing or magnitude error in this article. As for the uni-verse vs. multiverse I've made a note with the term multiverse and I believe there's a mistake in vocabulary of some kind. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:32, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Due to general relativity, space can expand faster than the speed of light. The light from the farthest objects we can see left the objects within the age of the universe, 14.3 billion years ago, yet due to expansion the objects are now much farther apart than 14.3 billion light years. See Universe#History of the Universe and Observable universe. --ChetvornoTALK 20:13, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
The observable universe is approximately 93 billion light years/28 billion parsecs in diameter. That puts the visible distance from the observer to the most distant point at 46-47 billion light years away. From observable universe, "According to calculations, the comoving distance (current proper distance) to particles from the CMBR, which represent the radius of the visible universe, is about 14.0 billion parsecs (about 45.7 billion light years), while the comoving distance to the edge of the observable universe is about 14.3 billion parsecs (about 46.6 billion light years),[1] about 2% larger."
As for multiverse and universe, a multiverse holds multiple universes, according to some theories. Our universal laws of physics may not apply to that which exists outside of our universe.Wzrd1 (talk) 20:27, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Edit Request.

Yes check.svg Done

The introduction contains an obvious error: "The farthest distance that it is theoretically possible for humans to see, called the observable universe, is about 93 billion light years in diameter." We can NOT observe ANYTHING at that distance. Claiming that it IS theoretically possible to see 93 Gly is first confusing, since the referenced distance should be a radius of 46.5 Gly from us and since NOTHING that is "now" at 46 Gly will ever be in our future light cone. Some of the objects that are "now" at 46 Gly, we can observe as they WERE at 13.5 Gya, but have since moved out of our area of observation (I am not sure I have that terminology right). Expansion of the Universe makes anything at 40 Gly beyond the 'edge' of our Universe (unless expansion stops or reverses). This article just simply needs to deal with the conflation of time and distance. It is space-time, you know. Bottom-line: There is NO theoretical possibility to see objects at 93 Gly. There is NO theoretical possibility to see objects at 46.5 Gly. We can "see" objects as they were at a distance of 13.5 Gly at a time of 13.5 Gya which because of the expansion of space-time we believe now are 46.5 Gly from us. It would be helpful to also note the theoretical furthest distance that a Supernova (which should be visible throughout the Universe) if it went off today, could be for its light to ever reach us. It might also be useful, but probably not in the introduction, to point out that if expansion ever stops, that in a static universe, eventually everything will be within our light cone, and our sky will be filled with light. And so, the "furthest possible observable" depends on assumptions about expansion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:26, 31 July 2013 (UTC) I do not intend to argue with the definition of Observable Universe, but this article confuses what we can observe once the light has had a chance to get here with what we can observe now. Assuming that the average reader appreciates the difference between "what was, what is, and what will be" is an error. Things are dropping out of our observable volume of space-time, I think? I believe the figures I saw was about 20 Gly at which recessional velocity exceeds c, but am not sure... The other issue that was not addressed is that "for humans to see" is misleading. "Theoretically possible to observe with our telescopes" is better, imho, we can not "see" 93 G ly distances. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:38, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

I made a simple fix as per your ideas. Do you additional specific edit requests? Bhny (talk) 20:15, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
As the IP editor pointed out, the original sentence was jibberish. But the new sentence wasn't really any better, mostly because it's probably not possible to explain what "observable universe" means in a single short sentence. I simplified the sentence so that it is now technically correct. The term observable universe is better expanded upon in the appropriate section (and further expanded beyond that in its sub-article) rather than us attempting to squish an entire textbook's worth of explanatory material into the introduction. — Gopher65talk 23:57, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
looks good, I'll mark this as done Bhny (talk) 03:50, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
Tweaked this a bit. There is parallax, unapparent without precision instrumentation which ancients lacked. Student7 (talk) 22:20, 4 August 2013 (UTC)


We need to establish a consensus whether "the [u|U]niverse", when it refers to our universe, is to be capitalised or not, and add an edit comment or perhaps even better a note visible to all explaining the established convention (house style) at Wikipedia. Considering that a lot of article titles such as Age of the universe use the lower-case convention, I propose we go with this one unless there are serious objections to this. I'm not attached to any specific solution, I just desire consistency and a consensus to help avoiding constant back-and-forth. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 18:56, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't care one way or the other either, but I've always been told - including in astronomy classes - that it was Universe (ours) and universe (general use). But conventions change over time, so who knows what the current convention is. — Gopher65talk 00:44, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
I'm not sure either. In a similar context, try My country (Country?), right or wrong.... Same sort of thing IMO. There has to be a rule already existing for this sort of thing. Student7 (talk) 14:15, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Capitalization redux

The results of the recent move requests at Talk:Age of the universe, Talk:Shape of the universe, and Talk:God becomes the universe lead me to resurrect the proposal above that the word universe be lowercased in the body of this article. Note that it was brought up in those discussions that the Style Guide for NASA History Authors and Editors specifies that universe should be lowercase and that the word is also lowercase in the American Astronomical Society's list of keywords. Deor (talk) 13:05, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

I still say it depends on the context. Not only whether you're talking about "the Universe" or "a universe", but whether or not you're specifically referring to our universe using its implied name (the Universe). I liken it to how you can refer to your father as "my dad", but still call out to him "hey Dad!" Whether or not the word is capitalized is contextual; it needs to be looked at on a sentence by sentence level. — Gopher65talk 15:08, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
Yeah - I'm with Gopher on this, but simply because that's the way they taught me to deal with proper nouns that can also be generic many years ago at grammar school. But if the guys who devote masses of time to this kind of thing have debated it, and NASA, god bless 'em, agree, then who am I to stand in the way of change? Seriously, we should do whatever the convention is, even if old dinosaurs like me find it a little jarring. Whatever we do we should do it consistently, though... Begoontalk 15:46, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

The human fish

“Just as a fish may be barely aware of the medium in which it lives and swims, so the microstructureofempty space could be far too complex for unaided human brains”. - Lord Rees — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:06, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

The Universe includes You

Deciding about mentioning of the self as part of the Universe (defined as totality of existence). There is bias on the matter, as many think that the Universe is just about the astronomical model.



This page about the Universe is currently missing an essential part. I added it and it got removed.

The Universe [...], including yourself

If anyone feels that his presence in the Universe is not real, or not relevant to the topic, let's talk about it. This page is about the Universe at Whole, as totality of existence, and not just about some limited models (theories/descriptions) of it.

The exclusion of the Self from the Universe is a common flaw of perception/interpretation that I feel we should signal explicitly. The interplay between the subjective Self and the objective Universe is the key to a more profound understanding. Relativity once accepted, makes all other theories dependent on their purpose (including astronomy).

In a broader sense, in its current form, this article gives the wrong impression that the Universe is ambiguously out there somewhere, in the galaxies that only astronomers see, or in the Physics lab where bosons are experimented or in some mathematicians mind where complex equations make sense.

Extremind (talk) 09:19, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

This article is about the astronomical concept of universe, it's scope does not include psychological, religious, or New Age definitions. --ChetvornoTALK 10:22, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
Totally agree with comments from Chetvorno above. Regards to all, David J Johnson (talk) 16:44, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
Well yes, if we're doing that "agree" thing, I agree too. Including yourself, huh? How about including my cat, or my pocket fluff?

This is not a place to correct your personal "feeling" that "The interplay between the subjective Self and the objective Universe is the key to a more profound understanding." I'm not sure where that place would be, but I doubt that it's anywhere on an encyclopedia. Begoontalk 16:56, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

What would you rather say the purpose of an encyclopedia is, other than expanding the reader's consciousness? If your cat is equally important to that goal as a totally generic (and totally specific in the meanwhile) yourself, take your chance and make your plead to include it as well. Although you should at least prove that your cat (or your fluff) actually exists, first. I am not sure if you place thinking above feeling or if you are that special kind of man who speaks unbiased of all things as they really are, but your polemic tentative on this matter shows quite a personal perspective, I would say. Extremind (talk) 19:41, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
The introductory phrase suggests that this article is rather about the ontological concept of Universe. Surely you are not suggesting that astronomy monopolizes the whole concept for itself, are you? Astronomy (as it is clearly mentioned as just just one of the models) did not invent the concept and neither does it exhaustively cover it. There are infinite aspects of the Universe that lie between the scales of macrocosm and microcosm, wouldn't you say? Extremind (talk) 19:41, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

I suggest we'd first agree on a definite set of criteria for evaluating this matter. How about truthfulness and relevance, for example? Does anyone know that his presence in the Universe is not real, or not relevant? Dare I emphasize that the very presence of the reader themselves is the basic premise of an encyclopedia? Extremind (talk) 19:41, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
WP:NOR Bhny (talk) 20:36, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
If you really want to play this game, I'll play: no, a reader's presence in the universe is not relevant to the existence of a Wikipedia article on the nature of said universe. Whether or not the alleged "you" who is reading the article existed, the universe would be, for the most part, basically the same. "Yourself" references a single individual (the person reading the words at any given moment). That one individual is not of significant importance to the concept of "universe", and certainly not any more significant than any other person. For example, would you accept the sentence, "The Universe [...], including yourself and Miley Cyrus." I would argue that neither "my" (the implied reader) nor "Miley Cyrus" are important enough for mention here. In policy terms, this falls under WP:UNDUE--mention of any single specific person, even by pronoun reference, is not due for this topic. Otherwise, theoretically, we'd go into every single article of this type and add something similar. For example, Earth includes the line "The planet is home to millions of species of life, including humans". Would you change that to say, "The planet is home to millions of species of life, including humans, one of which is you. And Miley Cyrus." I should hope not. The problem isn't original research, it's about deciding exactly what level of detail belongs in this article, and, sadly, "you" aren't (ain't? isn't?) at the level. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:54, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
I am not playing any game here. I am trying to improve this article by making it more precise. Rhetoric is definitely not my thing. It fails to be constructive. I am not exactly sure what your point is. Your suite of analogies has some degree of inadequacy that I wish to mention, so that we stick to the fair side of any play and avoid any inappropriate inferences.
  • The reader's presence is the only raison d'etre of any Wikipedia article, even to Wikipedia in general, I would say. Do you know any other?
  • Yourself is not just a pronoun, as you tend to suggest by your reductive analogy with an alleged Miley Cyrus. Yourself is not just one individual, as you may also reductively suggest, and not even just a class of individuals, but it stands for quite an indefinite set of classes (humans, observers, wikipedians, scientists, extraterrestrials - just to name a few of the postures that your self might identify with). It references the concept of self and it implicitly involves the actual presence of the reader/observer/you. It is strange how some people place more emphasis on the existence of a word in a wiki page than on their own existence in the world. We may ask the Universe if you are significant to it at all, I am sure we can think of ways.
  • Adding a word to this article is not a beginning of an avalanche to adding anything more to anywhere else. In your mind, maybe you are setting a precedent, but it is not the case. I would not change the page about the Earth, because I see no point, but your exaggeration is no argument for not improving a page of the Universe, where I see perfectly fit.
  • This article is not about the most part or the basic part of the Universe at all. It is about the totality of it. Yes, the totality may be hard to grasp. But the totality of existence (as it is) leaves absolutely no doubt to any alleged me/you. It seems to me that you are not making a difference between what is (existence) and what you think (the alleged possibility that I, a reader might not be, for instance).Extremind (talk) 12:04, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
My view is that this article is primarily about the astronomical definition of the Universe. With the latest discussion we are getting into "new age" and individual (personal) aspects of the subject. I'm afraid that to go into this scenario is giving WP:UNDUE to a fringe theory. I suggest that the article should remain broadly as it is. Regards to all, David J Johnson (talk) 19:25, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
David, your point of view is already stated (and enforced by your action also), there is no need to repeat it.
  • You might be confusing the totality of existence with the astronomical descriptions of the outer space. If it were not the case, this article would have a _astronomy suffix in the address bar, but it doesn't. Astronomy is just a model of the Universe and is correctly listed as such.
  • Moreover, you may misplace your concerns from this talk page on the change that I have proposed. "The article should remain broadly as it is". Definitely. Let's not forget that we are not discussing a radical change, like you may want to suggest. We are talking here about adding one single word: yourself
  • I am not sure why you bring up this New Age theory that I know nothing about, except if you want to make yourself a defender of a supposedly Obsolete theory. I care less for theory than for significance. There is nothing new agey about my/human presence in the Universe. And there is nothing questionable about it. My presence is a consequence of uncountable factors that have lead to my manifestation as it is.
As far as I’m concerned, there's still no reason to exclude yourself from this article, except some personal bias on the matter. Extremind (talk) 12:04, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
This article is correctly defined IMO.
I was wondering whether there might not be some definition in philosophy or mathematics that has a definition that includes the observer that might go into Universe (disambiguation). To my surprise, I stumbled across this: Quantum_mind–body_problem#Decoherence_and_modern_interpretations. Your thoughts? Student7 (talk) 17:33, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
Nice catch. I would gladly agree with the alternative that this existing article be suffixed with _astronomy or _cosmology and a clean article of the Universe be abstracted further to treat the Universe as totality of existence in more nuanced aspects, linking down to all other theories. Extremind (talk) 12:04, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
I'm agreeing with David Johnson and Chetvorno and others. From personal observation, I am so cool that I am out of this world, so the universe does not yet include me (it tries), so I think sticking with the astronomical view is preferred.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:18, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
After you carefully observe the definition of Universe (as totality of existence) as well as some basics on logic, you might adjust your conclusion to either 1: you exist and are part of it; or 2: you don't exist, and neither your absurd point of view exists, case which I will kindly ask you to let the forces of Universe do what they need to do here, okay? And this is valid for all of you unexisting people. Get a sense of existence first and only then write about it. (talk) 09:50, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
Extremind, you need to stop pushing your nonsensical unsourced addition against consensus. Be satisfied. The article defines the universe as the "totality of existence"; that obviously includes each of us. --ChetvornoTALK 16:31, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
According to WP:Consensus, I am the consensus here, even though you are many. In determining consensus, consider the quality of the arguments, the history of how they came about, the objections of those who disagree, and existing documentation in the project namespace. The quality of an argument is more important than whether it represents a minority or a majority view. The arguments "I just don't like it" and "I just like it" usually carry no weight whatsoever. Many pretexts, games, jokes and rhetoric have been invoked against reasoning, but no valid argument so far. This is just not about me or you or Miley Cyrus. Please cast your misunderstanding somewhere else. Wikipedia is just too important to shelter ignorance. Extremind (talk) 09:55, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
One person alone cannot simply say "I have consensus, all of the other people commenting are wrong." We have put forward many many valid arguments. The fact that you do not accept them does not mean that you get to declare that you are correct. The simple fact is that the person reading the encyclopedia is of no greater importance than any other thing in existence...arguably of quite less importance.
The only way I could possibly imagine you swaying the current very strong consensus would be for you to introduce a substantial number of reliable sources that defined the universe in the same way you wish to define it. Do you have any such sources? Remember, that's really our goal--to reflect what sources say, not what our own philosophies/opinions say. Qwyrxian (talk) 11:25, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
You might mistake the pretexts to cover up a bias for valid reasoning, but that's fine, I guess, for someone who does not practice relativity. You might also confuse importance with something else (like probably... scale?). When you realize what importance is and who gives the importance (the subject, maybe?), look up for yourself the sources that you need. For the moment, I am more efficient in other activities than to force my way through Wikicracy. There is a time for everything. Extremind (talk) 07:32, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
  • this is an encyclopedia article, not a philosophical commentary. "including you" is in contradiction to WP:TONE, WP:VALID, WP:OR, WP:NOT and pretty much every other policy and guideline and has no place in this article. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 11:10, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

§ Thank you all very much for your input. It is sad for me to accept the current misrepresentation of the Universe on Wikipedia, but it's been a pleasure knowing your viewpoints. Extremind (talk) 07:32, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

The Universe won't bother, either. Maybe that's what you were searching for, explaining the difference between our subjective minds and the real world outside of our minds: -- (talk) 01:17, 17 January 2014 (UTC) Forgot to mention: The 6 senses being the interface between our inside world and the outside world: sound, sight, touch, smell, taste and balance. Senses do make sense, right? -- (talk) 01:27, 17 January 2014 (UTC)


I would like to add some information in the "Universe" section. In 1875 Swami Dayanand Saraswati wrote a book called "Satyarth Prakash" it means Light of Truth. The chapter 8 is " Creation Sustenance and Dissolution of Universe" Please read the book which is also in Wikipedia and can be found using Google. JRBhagat (talk) 18:57, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Long or Short Scale?

Quote: "The observable universe is about 46 billion light years in radius" Is this in short scale or long scale? Long_and_short_scales --Taltamir (talk) 17:02, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Short scale. This should not cause problems for anyone from the English speaking world. Asians may have problems. In other words, "billion" is one thousand million and therefore standard in this encyclopedia. Student7 (talk) 21:23, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 February 2014

Marlon Eros/Jesus/Yahweh=Owner of the Universe>

Aeros1971 (talk) 20:58, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Declined. Not a useful request. Mindmatrix 21:03, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

The age and size of the universe

How is it possible to detect stars from 100 billion light years away if the Universe is only 13 billion years old? How can anything out there in the Universe be beyond where light traveling since the Big Bang has yet to reach? Is it possible for two objects to be become separated in space by more than the distance light could have traveled? (talk) 20:50, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

I suggest you look to the definition of the observable universe article. But let me explain it further.
It's true that we can only see objects 13.8 billion light years away at the present because of the finite speed of light. But it's a common misconception that "observable universe" means what part of the universe we can see at the present when its true meaning is what part we can see at some point of the infinite future.
I know its confusing that the observable universe is somewhere 46 to 47 billion light years in radius. But it is actually a mark. Metric expansion of space redshifts photons of light to lower energies. The mark, 46-47 billion light years, is actually the point where a photon beyond it gets so redshifted that it will no longer be detectable here on Earth. For example, a supernova happened 36 billion light years away. We are not able to see it today, given the age of the universe, the signal is still 23 billion light years away. But again, observable universe does not deal with the present, it is given to the point of infinite future. Because the supernova is inside the mark, in the future, we are able to detect it, because the photon is not yet so redshifted to the point of undetectability.
But consider a supernova happens 53 billion light years away. That is beyond the mark. You may think we can see it after 53 billion years. Well, no. Even if we wait for 54 billion years, 106 billion years, 1 trillion years, a googol (10100) years, and even a millinillion (103003) years, we will never be able to detect the supernova. Why? It's because it's outside the mark! Anything beyond the mark will never be able to be detected even to the point of infinite future.
You may be confused, how can objects expand superluminally (faster-than-light) without breaking the laws of physics? Einstein's general relativity says nothing can be faster than light. Well, people misunderstood the definition.
It does not say "anything". It says "anything that curves spacetime" can never be faster than light. Matter has weight and curves spacetime, so we will never go beyond c (the speed of light). But spacetime is different, it has no weight and does not curve itself. So it can expand beyond c. It only carries matter away with it, so we can see galaxies travelling away from us faster than c.==Johndric Valdez (talk) 22:16, 1 March 2014 (UTC)==
The light's been travelling for 13 thousand million years but the Universe has been expanding in the meantime so the point from which the light came is now more than 13 gigalight-years away. Jimp 10:04, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Finite Vs Infinite

To imply the universe is infinite, means the Universe or everything that we are referring to is in fact not Everything and thus we are allowing ourselves to be contradictory rather than "non contradictory" aka "Finite".

The laws of physics work because they are based upon finite non contradictory quanta. Thus the Universe can only ever be Finite, no matter how much of it we will never know about it.

Yes the universe presents infinitely, but that's only possible by way of some unknown division aka assumed "Infinite" division. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:20, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Do you have a citation to support this? There are other citations which refute it and state the (this) universe is geographically infinite. Both positions should be in article. Student7 (talk) 19:05, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
I don't know what you're on about. The Universe may be finite or it may be infinite in terms of space. Space is curved. The curvature may be such that the Universe is curved in on itself (like the surface of a sphere) in which case it is finite in size. Otherwise it's infinite. Matter and energy may be quantised but there may be a finite or infinite number of these quanta. Jimp 10:11, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

An infinite universe?

“The size of the Universe is unknown; it may be infinite.””

“…the Big Bang model suggests that at some moment all matter in the universe was contained in a single point, which is considered the beginning of the universe.”

If it is infinite, then it always must have been infinite so going back in time would not result in a point-like beginning? Antonquery (talk) 01:44, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Zero times infinity can be zero. This exactly what happens if you evolve the universe back in time according to general relativity. Please also note that wikipedia talk pages are not the place to ask questions. They are here to discuss improvements to articles.TR 12:47, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
Well, if the creation of an infinite universe (and ditto matter and energy content) cannot be completed within a finite time, then the big bang should still be going on as we speak. If, on the other hand, its dimensions and hence its matter/energy content is finite, but there is nothing outside of it to whom or what its exact size, its matter and energy content can matter –its density, the value of k– then its magnitude also cannot matter as seen from within, and hence not affect the fate of the universe. Antonquery (talk) 08:22, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Antonquery was not asking a general question, he was bringing up an apparent contradiction between two statements in the article, which is within the scope of this page. As I understand it, the two statements are not contradictory, but the paradoxical reason is buried in the Solving Einstein's field equations section and perhaps should be addressed more prominently in the article. If the curvature of the universe is zero or negative (k = 0 or -1), at any time after the Big Bang the universe has infinite size; given any number of kilometers d you can find two points in the universe which are separated by a greater (spacelike) distance than that. As time t goes on, the (spacelike) distance between any two points in the universe is constantly expanding. Conversely as you look back further in time, the distance between any two points gets less. What happens at the Big Bang itself is undefined, but as the time approaches the Big Bang, the distance between any two points or objects approaches zero. The universe is infinite but all distances approach zero. This indicates a breakdown of the concept of distance at the instant of the Big Bang, a singularity in the metric.
The article does attempt to address this by saying: "A common misconception is that the Big Bang model predicts that matter and energy exploded from a single point in space and time; that is false. Rather, space itself was created in the Big Bang...." But perhaps it should be explained better. --ChetvornoTALK 22:49, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
Given his posting history, it is more like he was just asking a question. (This is not the first time I have answered one of his questions.) Nonetheless, you are right that somebody asking a question might indicate something is unclear about the article.TR 10:36, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, I guess if a reader wants a more detailed explanation he can also refer to other articles, such as the Metric expansion of space article. --ChetvornoTALK 17:50, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
My problem is that if the universe creates itself out of nothing, then everything inside of it, including space and time, should add to nothing, cancel –which is not unlike how the sum of all debts and credits on Earth is always zero. In that case the universe isn't just unobservable from the outside (which is the same as saying that mass, energy, space and time aren't defined outside of it): it then is that extraordinary, paradoxical 'thing' which has no external physical reality but only exists as seen from within. While its unobservability wouldn’t matter if particles have been provided with properties shortly into the bang so their properties are privately owned quantities, only the cause of interactions, if in a self-creating universe particles must create themselves, each other, then particles, particle properties must be as much the cause as the effect of their interactions. In that case it is no longer legitimate to consider the universe as an ordinary object which has particular properties and evolves as a whole, in time. If it cannot have particular properties as a whole as ‘seen’ from the outside, then it also cannot not have particular properties and be in any particular state as a whole as seen from within.Put differently, if the universe, among many kinds of particles, would contain only a single electrically charged particle, then it wouldn’t be able to express its charge –in which case it cannot be charged itself. A property, any property then must be something which lives within particle interactions. So if we speak about the properties of an object, we implicitly assert that there is an environment in which they can be expressed in interactions. In speaking about the properties of the universe, we in fact state that it owes its properties to something outside of it: that it has been created by some outside intervention -so the Big Bang hypothesis is a naïve, essentially religious tale, never mind the observational ‘evidence. Antonquery (talk) 02:58, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
As TR said, this is not the place to discuss general questions about the universe. Guess you were right, TR. --ChetvornoTALK 05:11, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Does it matter much where it is discussed if the answer affects the text page: whether the statement “The size of the Universe is unknown; it may be infinite” should be changed or not? Antonquery (talk) 08:22, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

"commonly defined" weasel words

I've tried unsuccessfully before to remove the weasel words "commonly defined" from the first sentence. I think our current definition is good but far from a common one, and it is now a lie to say "commonly defined". Also it is weasely and against WP:REFERS. The standard structure of the first sentence of a good article is usually <topic> is <definition>. If there are two or more definitions then we should just list them or find a simple definition that covers them all. As it is now we are just inferring that there are other better, less common, definitions that we won't tell you about. Bhny (talk) 04:19, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Totality of existence

There is a difference between universe as totality of existence and other terms mentioned (cosmos, world, nature, ...), and it could be that this difference is enormous considering various philosophical, religious and even pyhsical (multiverse) theories about existence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:21, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

For this article, Physics/Astronomy/Quantum Physics "own" the article name plus the article multiverse. Other definitions may be construed but would need to be qualified. Universe (religion) or Universe (philosophy), that sort of thing. There is no ambiguity here, nor room for further disciplines. Student7 (talk) 18:50, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
If so, then the first 'phylosophical' statement in the article doesn't belong here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:44, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

The first sentence of this article presupposes naturalism, making it a philosophical statement. This is why I find it difficult to take Wikipedia seriously at times. It's obvious that the sentence was construed this way to push an agenda. Science is a methodology by which we can observe, study, and predict physical phenomena (e.g. planets, stars, etc.). Therefore, one would have to presume there is nothing but physical reality in order to state that the universe (a physical manifold) is the totality of all existence. (talk) 03:13, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Then your problem is not with Wikipedia but with encyclopedias in general, because virtually all encyclopedias define it that way.
If your claim is true, then I suppose I would take issue with those other encyclopedias as well. They would be just as misleading and biased with their definition of universe. Is your claim true though? Even if it were, that's not a good argument to continue the ignorance. Is it? In any case, I noticed you didn't touch upon the main point I was driving at with my comments. That being said, according to the universe is "the whole cosmic system of matter and energy of which Earth, and therefore the human race, is a part." A much better first sentence for the definition of universe, I must say. Notice how the definition doesn't presuppose naturalism in the opening sentence. (talk) 04:42, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

This is exactly what I came here to post. I think that adding the qualifier "The Universe is commonly defined as the totality of physical existence" would solve most of these philosophical problems with that opening sentence. Wikipedia is a document of the human experience of life, and I think it's inappropriate to completely ignore the metaphysical/spiritual realm of existence that an overwhelming majority of human beings believe in -- whether you may agree or disagree. Pinkpills (talk) 08:33, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Inserting religious dogma in this article is no more appropriate than going around and inserting, "but science says this is stupid" in every article on religious topics. — Gopher65talk 13:42, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
Totally agree with Gopher65's comments above. This article is no place for religious dogma. David J Johnson (talk) 13:59, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
You two are the first that have brought up religion. As far as I can see the change made had nothing to do with religion, but more with logic and philosophy. To highlight the problem with the old first sentence consider the following: Mathematics exists. But is mathematics part of the universe as commonly defined? Probably not. Adding the word "physical" to the first sentence nicely clarifies in what sense the word "exist" is used.TR 16:44, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
Then may I respectfully suggest that you re-read Pinkpill's comments above, which is furthering the religious theme - as is the rest of their contributions to Wikipedia. David J Johnson (talk) 16:59, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
My I respectfully ask that you actually respond to arguments? Whatever his motivation, his change was an improvement for the reason I mentioned above.TR 20:14, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
I have responded to the "arguments", you are the only editor who thinks that Pinkpills changes are an improvement. Further you have no reason to engage in a personal attack in your comments when you make an edit. You need to abide by Wikipedia conventions in future. Unlike yourself, I have no intention of entering a edit war with you. I'm happy to wait for other editors response to the matter. As far as I'm concerned - case closed. David J Johnson (talk) 20:43, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
I agree with Gopher65 and David J Johnson; the qualification "physical" is not needed. --ChetvornoTALK 20:58, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
Although not strictly necessary, it does help to provide context for the definition. As I noted above, the current first sentence can be construed to include abstractions (like mathematics) that would not normally be considered "part of the universe". In this sense having the qualification "physical" is somewhat helpful. I have yet to see anybody here provide an argument why have that qualification would detract from the article.TR 21:14, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
I recently read a bit about this, and, fascinatingly, it isn't known whether math exists as a construct within our universe, or if it exists independently of our universe in a greater multi/metaverse, or if it exists independently of any universe, as a kind of sea of probability. It's an interesting subject:). But because it isn't known (or even "leaned" either way, as far as I can tell), we can't really make a claim like that in the opening sentence. — Gopher65talk 00:42, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
It's not a claim about physicalism, MUH, etc., it helps distinguish the topic of this article from Universe of discourse, for example.—Machine Elf 1735 02:50, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── The first sentence is extremely bad but adding "physical" to it makes it worse. Where is the reference for this? Bhny (talk) 04:08, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Why ask for a reference for something supposedly "redundant"? It's not btw, but what people seem troubled about is that it's too specific in the sense given at the "physical universe" article: that it would exclude the supernatural. However, that seems ok to me because this article doesn't actually cover the supernatural, fictional universes, mathematical universe (mathematics), etc.—Machine Elf 1735 06:16, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
It is frustating to try to discuss, when people do not explain why they think something is "redundant" or "makes things worse". It makes building consensus hard.TR 08:00, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
"Physical" is redundant because the universe is everything that exists and non-physical things don't exist. Saying "physical" also weirdly implies the existence of non-physical things outside of the universe. But that is only my opinion and doesn't matter! If the references say "physical" then we use physical. "Why ask for a reference" seems a crazy question to me. Bhny (talk) 19:30, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps redundant given the "Physical cosmology" sidebar, but I agree the "commonly defined" part's pure weasel.—Machine Elf 1735 05:15, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
"Saying "physical" also weirdly implies the existence of non-physical things outside of the universe." — That is exactly my problem with that phrasing. It's nonsensical. — Gopher65talk 12:24, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
I like this debate I got going here. I still stand by my wording. "Saying 'physical' also weirdly implies the existence of non-physical things outside of the universe." Not exactly, but close: it implies the possible existence of non-physical things outside the universe. This is where the question of neutral POV comes in. To a naturalist, the physical universe is all there is, end of story. But neutral does not mean "naturalist". The definition should be fair to the very large majority of people who believe in "higher" realms of whatever kind. That isn't nonsensical at all; it's simply a different opinion than yours. So I still think we need to be careful how we define the Universe, and calling it the totality of physical existence works for most beliefs. But maybe there is an even better way to word it.Pinkpills (talk) 12:37, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
The reason it is nonsensical is because - by definition - the universe contains everything physical and non-physical that can impact our existence. The only reason to insert the word "physical" there is as a weasel word to try and imply that there are non-physical things that exist inside the universe, but also non-physical things that exist outside the universe. You've now entered the realm of wide imagination. This addition is necessary only if your personal beliefs include things that are so far outside the known laws of physics that no reasonable addition to those laws could cover your beliefs. What's ruled impossible by that line of reasoning? Not much. FTL? Nope, we can imagine laws that would cover that. Might not be true, but it could be. "Higher planes of existence"? Might exist. May well not, but meh. "Aliens killed my cattle!"? They're almost certainly not here, but they aren't precluded from existing or being here. Telepathy? Doesn't seem likely, but we can certainly imagine that new physical laws could be uncovered that would allow previously unthought of types of long distance communication. Miracles/curses? Well, maybe something exists that alters the laws of probablity somehow? Doesn't seem likely, but maybe. That covers almost every belief system, and it's all included inside the word "universe". What's precluded though? As I said, not much. Some older mythologies can no longer exist (hollow Earth, glass spheres, etc). But for modern mythologies? Pretty much just one: an all seeing, all power, all knowing, omnipresent God. That is precluded. That is impossible. That cannot exist within our universe.
So, as I originally stated waaaay up at the top of this topic, putting the word "physical" in there is inserting religious dogma into this article. And not even general religious dogma, but rather support for a specific subset of Abrahamic religions. This is not a religious article. It is not the place for mythology. There are articles that are all about such topics. That is where statements like that should go. — Gopher65talk 14:38, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
I have to go to work now, so no edits for a while, but I hope that didn't sound overly harsh. It was intended to get an idea across, not be mean. — Gopher65talk 14:42, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Edit Warring

Well, with the exception of obvious vandalism I don't engage in more than 1 revert of someone's content. I don't like edit warring. So hopefully we have enough people chime in on this that a consensus is possible. — Gopher65talk 03:45, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Universe and reality

The universe is certainly part of reality--but is it the totality of reality? The opening paragraph of this article seems to indicate that it is. In particular, I'm talking about the sentence, "Similar terms include the cosmos, the world, reality, and nature." First, I find this sentence redundant because universe was already clearly defined before it. It's redundant as far as that's concerned unless the editor is making an attempt to lump "universe" in with "reality," as though the universe and reality were synonymous. Perhaps they are and perhaps they aren't. The terms are certainly synonymous to the naturalist, but that isn't a neutral position. (talk) 06:05, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't say the "universe" is synonymous with "reality", Different terms have been used in history and in everyday discourse to discuss the concept we now call the "universe" For example the word "World" was used extensively in Western philosophy to mean "universe" (particularly before it was understood there were other "worlds"). Some of the terms from the sentence are also used in dictionary definitions of "universe". We've had a lot of discussion on this page already about the philosophical meaning of "universe". I think it's fine the way it is. --ChetvornoTALK 08:33, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

The opening paragraph defines the universe as a physical manifold which is true; that's what it is. However, at the end of the paragraph a laundry list of words are used and we're told that these are all similar to what the universe--a physical manifold--is. One word in the list is "reality." But reality encompasses absolutely everything that is real or actual, which would include even the supernatural (e.g., God). The problem with this is the supernatural is by definition a category of being that transcends the universe or nature. So there's a glaring problem here unless one holds the belief that there is no such thing as a category of being outside of nature, that naturalism is true, that the universe IS reality, and not merely a stratum of reality. (talk) 09:07, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

And that is why it says "similar" and not "equivalent", i.e. there is overlap in how the terms are used, and within a certain POVs (but not others) they could even be used as synonyms.TR 09:19, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Similar how though? Reality encompasses everything that is real or actual. The universe encompasses all physicality. So in what way is "reality" and "universe" similar? Calling these two words similar is like calling the set of natural numbers and the set {1, 2, 3} similar. I guess they're similar in the sense that they're both sets, but that's not worth noting. I don't think these two words are similar in any way or to be more modest: in any meaningful way. For the sake of my next point, let's say they're similar. How similar are they? That isn't explained at all, which makes things confusing and ambiguous for the reader. There are people reading the opening paragraph, being taught that the universe is spacetime or all physicality, and then they go on to read that this is similar to reality. But when one investigates this claim by clicking on reality they find that reality is much bigger than the universe--or at least there is the possibility that it is.

There seems to be something fishy going on here. One problem is many of the editors here at Wikipedia don't have any formal training in the topics that they're editors for--so one see them doing silly things like comparing "reality" with "the universe." A person with a little training in science and philosophy wouldn't make such a mistake in a so-called encyclopedia that is supposedly neutral, unless they were purposely trying to push a certain viewpoint like naturalism. (talk) 09:42, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Recent addition to introduction on multiverses

There seems to be an incipient edit war over the addition of a paragraph to the introduction saying that the terms "multiverse" or "many universes" are unscientific. --ChetvornoTALK 04:51, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

My feeling is, first, regardless of the validity of this point of view, it contradicts the sourced sentence at the end of the introduction mentioning multiverses, as well as the sourced section Universe#Multiverse theory. To add this paragraph, it needs to be sourced, and the sections of the article on multiverses should be deleted for consistency. Second, the paragraph strays into an off-topic rant on neologisms, which should be deleted. Third, the issue of whether the "multiverse" hypothesis should be included in this article is controversial and has been argued ad infinitum on this Talk page before; it should be discussed on this page before changes are made to the article. --ChetvornoTALK 04:51, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
I agree with with all your points, in fact I think it's quite over the top, thank you.—Machine Elf 1735 19:58, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

I have never understood why, if universe is defined as everything, "multiverse" isn't an oxymoron. (talk) 21:04, 10 October 2014 (UTC)Terry Thorgaard (talk) 21:05, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

This situation happens over and over again in science; when the definition of a concept gets expanded due to scientific discoveries, new words (neologisms) have to be invented to distinguish the new meaning from the old meaning. In the history of Western philosophy the word "World" used to have a similar meaning to "Universe". Then the early astronomers discovered the stars and planets in the sky were not supernatural beings but physical objects ("worlds") like the Earth, so the word "World" slowly shifted in meaning from "everything there is" to mean "planet", one among many. So a new word was needed for "everything there is" and the word "Universe" came into use, which has come to mean our contiguous spacetime. If it turns out there are multiple universes, the word Universe is going to likewise shift in meaning to mean "one among many", and a new word will be needed for "everything there is", hence "multiverse". --ChetvornoTALK 23:30, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

A wrong use of "infinite"

This article states "The size of the Universe is unknown; it may be infinite." Yet it also states " Observations of supernovae have shown that the Universe is expanding at an accelerating rate." Now I'm no Einstein but I know that if the Universe had a beginning in the big bang and we are now 13.8 billion years in, It must be really big, but by definition cannot be infinite, because infinity is defined as "without limit". Please this is really simple and I was thinking about how it didn't make sense after reading. It can't be infinite regardless of how quickly it has been expanding for 14 billion years.

What is actually happening is a non-terminating process, space is continually growing larger, Yet it's not infinite because each individual light year, or mile, or foot, or inch etc. is finite and is achieved in a finite number of steps or time. Rather, the expansion of the universe "Approaches infinity". Yet, it cannot currently be infinite, not even in speculation (according to the previous mentioned facts of this article).

In fact, nothing in our universe can currently be infinite because time itself had a beginning in the big bang and terminates up to this very moment. For some physical property of our universe to have "no limit" and have a beginning at some point... time itself would have to stop completely - Only then will you never reach an end. The absence of time is true infinity.

Infinity is an abstract concept that cannot be observed in nature. Thanks. I hope this gets cleared up.

ps: This applies to the observable and unobservable universe. Carb0nshell (talk) 06:32, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

That isn't presently known. Available evidence gently *suggests* that the universe is spacial finite (maybe, or maybe just our local bubble is spatially finite...could go either way), but it doesn't say much about whether or not it is temporarily finite or infinite. Remember, something only has to be infinite in one direction (ie eg, a number life from 0 to infinity) to be infinite. So even if the universe could be said to have had a conventional beginning - a singularity popped into existence and instantly expanded - and it could still be just like that number line. It could have had a set beginning, go on forever, and be infinite in the direction of the future. And in that case it would be infinite, just like that number line. — Gopher65talk 12:35, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

I think you [(Carb0nshell)] are mistakenly thinking of the universe as a simple expanding sphere. Read this: Shape_of_the_universe- "According to cosmologists, ... the shape of the universe is infinite and flat, but the data are also consistent with other possible shapes". Bhny (talk) 13:27, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
A spatially infinite universe does not necessarily follow from the non-detection of curvature in the local universe. The article you link to actually talks about that a bit. Basically, if we detect the local universe to be "flat", that tells us nearly nothing about the shape or size of the universe. It's only if we detect curvatures that we can really start to speculate. This is (among other reasons) because any shape universe will appear flat if it is much larger than our local observable universe. All we can really say from our current measurements is exactly what this article says: "The size of the Universe is unknown; it may be infinite." That is literally the entirety of our (relatively certain) knowledge in this area. — Gopher65talk 15:40, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
Sorry by "you" I meant Carb0nshell, who may be using a balloon metaphor for the expanding universe. Bhny (talk) 19:25, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
The universe has been expanding for billions of years. We could mentally freeze this current moment in time and measure all of the finite miles back to the center. If we did this, we would get a concrete number, not infinity.
Also, remember: The future hasn't yet happened. Our timeline terminates, or ends, or stops at the most recent moment of present time. (its constantly being pushed froward, as time moves on). Infinite would mean the future already existing. Otherwise we only "approach" infinity with each passing second. Of course time is not infinite in the past direction - having an origin with the Big bang. So time has a beginning, and an end - that's constantly moving closer to infinity - yet it isn't infinite because it isn't complete. The number line is a good example of a complete infinity. Time - unlike the number line - is moving. Carb0nshell (talk) 09:25, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
Shape shouldn't matter here if the universe is somehow changing in any way through time. shape-wise, or really in any respect, then it can't be infinite. Carb0nshell (talk) 09:35, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
Carb, if you wouldn't mind, please put your comments at the bottom of all the other ones. It just makes it easier to follow the flow of conversation:).
As to your comment, I want you to ignore the universe for a moment, and we'll talk about infinities in general, since you seem to misunderstand the term.
Imagine this: you have an infinite set of numbers. This set, in fact: {0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5... ---->}. This is the set of natural numbers. It starts at 0 and just keeps going forever. So it's an infinite set. Ok so far? Everyone has trouble with infinity. It's a weird concept.
Ok, so we have this infinite number set. You take out a single number, let's say "13", and you say, "ah hah! 13 is not an infinity! Therefore this isn't an infinite set of numbers!" ...Well 13 certainly isn't infinite, but that isn't the point. You can always extract a single number, or in fact any finite set like {13, 14, 15}, say, and that finite set will, of course, be finite. It will be finite because you specifically defined it as finite when you extracted it:). But just because you can pull out individual non-infinite numbers from that infinite set, that doesn't have any bearing on the set itself. The set of natural numbers is still infinite. It still goes on forever. For our purposes here, infinite basically means "goes on forever in at least one direction". In the case of the set of natural numbers, it has a definite beginning (either 0 or 1, depending on which you choose to start with), but it doesn't have an ending. It is only infinite in one direction.
So what does this have to do with the universe? Well, you said (paraphrased), "ah hah! The universe is 13 billion years old! That means it isn't infinite!" Well... no. That just means that you pulled out one number of an infinite set. Of course that particular number (that particular age) isn't infinity large, but it couldn't be. That's just not how infinities work. — Gopher65talk 15:23, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
You are also questioning the size of the spacial dimensions of the universe, claiming that it can't be infinite, because it started a finite time in the past. This is not the case. A universe could *poof* into existence and be infinitely large, or it could *poof* into existence and be a finite size. Universes are weird things. They don't follow the same rules as you and me, or as a balloon that you're blowing up.
I know scientists will say, "the universe expands like a balloon filling with air", but that's just an analogy. A really, really bad analogy, which gives people a lot of wrongheaded ideas about the universe.
I also think you're making the (very common) mistake of thinking of the Big Bang as an explosion which blew 'stuff' outward. If you make that assumption, then it totally makes sense that the universe would *have* to be finite, right? Because the explosion has been going on for 13.8 billion years, and no matter how fast the stuff is exploding outward, it is still finite in size.
But that's another really, really, really inaccurate analogy. That one isn't so much inaccurate as it is flat out wrong. The Big Bang didn't explode. And from the inside, even expansion is hard to see. Oh it "expanded", but an infinite object can still expand (see, infinities are weird, aren't they), either locally or as a whole. Just think about some points on our number line from the comment above: {12, 13, 14}. {40, 41, 42, 43}. {60, 61, 62, 63}. {1000000, 1000001, 1000002}. Each individual point on the number line, both present and future, is growing larger. But the number line as a whole is infinite. Weird, right? That's not an exact analogy either, but I don't think there are any exact analogies for the universe;).
I'm not sure I can properly explain to you exactly why the universe might be infinite (it's complicated), but I hope I've been successful in helping you see some of the flaws in your logic. — Gopher65talk 15:38, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
I have one last comment about how freaking weird the concept of infinity is. Imagine the set of natural numbers again. We'll use the version without 0 this time, for simplicities sake. {1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6... ---->}. Now, imagine a second number line where we count by twos instead of by ones. {2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12... ---->}. Both sets go to infinity. They're both infinite. But the second set, the one that counts by twos, is twice as large as the first set. No really, the second infinity is (provably) 2x the size of the first infinity. This isn't a trick. It really is. You see, infinities are never ending, but that doesn't mean they're all the same. Some infinities are... bigger... I guess, than others. We don't really have words to describe that. Bigger doesn't really work there, does it? But that's the way it works. One last time: infinities are weird;). — Gopher65talk 15:45, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
Our arguments all boil down to the structure of time. If the future is some construct that already exists out there, just waiting for us to arrive at its pre-built location, then your logic could work. I don't think most people see time as pulling random numbers off of an infinite number line, but rather as the inevitable progression into the future with the passing of present events into the past. Maybe, however, we do need to give science more time before changing this article. Pun intended.— Carb0nshell (talk) 19:40, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
No, cosmologists don't see time like that. Time is a dimension like the spacial dimensions, and like them had its origin at the Big Bang. The Big Bang is a singularity, a "coordinate" at which time and space lose meaning. Since all world lines originate at the Big Bang there is no meaning to the time "before" the Big Bang. That is also why the Universe could have always been spacially infinite, and yet have a beginning, in opposition to your argument, Carb0nshell Think of a movie of the Universe expanding, played backwards. The distance between any two objects, such as galaxies, gets smaller, until at the Big Bang the distance between any two objects goes to zero. ANY two objects, no matter how far apart they originally were. ALL distances go to zero. So the Universe could be spacially infinite a moment after the Big Bang. You can't apply normal intuition about distance and time to the Big Bang itself, it is inconsistent, like dividing by zero. --ChetvornoTALK 20:47, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

To address the very first comment in this section: The universe could quite possibly be infinite in extent even though only a finite amount of time has passed since the Big Bang. Even in 1-dimensional space (a line), the velocity field dx/dt = x2 results in particles going off to infinity in a finite amount of time. (And like that field, we know that masses are moving away from us faster, the farther away they are from us.)Daqu (talk) 13:59, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Confusion between a number and a function

In the Multiverse section, this sentence appears:

"Tegmark calculated our nearest so-called doppelgänger, is 1010115 meters away from us (a double exponential function larger than a googolplex)."

But this statement confuses a number— which is what 1010115 is — with a function, which 1010115 is not.Daqu (talk) 14:06, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Not infinite

I have researched the universe a topic and in my research it say that the universe is expanding so therefore it can not be defined as infinite.

Fun facts. The universe as far as we know has no edge an is not expanding from a singular point in space.

If I am wrong about any of there things I am talking about I would like to know what and why it is wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZeroKool00 (talkcontribs) 09:06, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

This was just discussed in the section two sections up from this one (and many, many times before this). Long story short, we don't even know what shape the universe is (current evidence points toward a "saddle" shaped, or infinite universe). Until we know the shape of the universe, we can't tell if it is spatially finite or infinite. Also, the universe may be temporarily infinite in one direction (the future). — Gopher65talk 12:48, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
I agree. In addition, ZeroKool00, a spacially infinite universe can still be expanding. Expansion just means the distance between any two sufficiently separate objects, such as clusters of galaxies, is increasing. --ChetvornoTALK 15:09, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
In addition, a spatially finite universe can also be expanding. (Imagine a balloon inflating.)
But I have no idea what the comment "Until we know the shape of the universe, we can't tell if it is spatially finite or infinite." Isn't the infinitude, or finitude, of the universe something that is one aspect of its shape? Or was something different meant?
Furthermore: Fun fact — a shape that is uniformly expanding is expanding from every point (not from no point). That means you can choose any point you like, and everything else will be expanding away from it. Again, imagine an inflating balloon.Daqu (talk) 21:10, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Fine tuning and the anthropic principle

The section on fine tuning contains the text:

"As such the conditional probability of observing a Universe that is fine-tuned to support intelligent life is 1. This observation is known as the anthropic principle and is particularly relevant if the creation of the Universe was probabilistic or if multiple universes with a variety of properties exist (see below). However, the observation that the chemistry of life may have begun shortly after the Big Bang, 13.8 billion years ago, during a habitable epoch when the Universe was only 10–17 million years old, may differ, in part, with the anthropic principle.[62][63]"

So, I don't understand how the possibility that the early universe had conditions conducive to life changes the conditional probability from 1 that the universe could support intelligent life. Maybe @Drbogdan can add an brief explanatory clause to the last sentence? Thanks, still wondering how we all got here, Grandma (talk) 19:57, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

I really want to get rid of that fine tuning section. Totally irrelevant in that section Tetra quark (talk) 17:26, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Well, if the universe had a habitable period in a time when we'd previously decided that nothing should have been alive, that likely means that the only reason we see the universe as being "fine tuned" to allow us to exist is because we have both a narrow point of view of what can exist, and a very self-centered view of what conditions need to be like for life to exist. I wouldn't say it contradicts the weak anthropic principle, I'd say it strengthens it, if anything. — Gopher65talk 16:16, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Does the word universe have a capital "U"?

I see the capital U being used sometimes, but not all the times, so we should make a decision Tetra quark (talk) 22:43, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

For the sake of having a centralized discussion, here's the link to the same topic at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomy, also recently started by Tetra quark.   ~ Tom.Reding (talkcontribsdgaf)  01:35, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
I don't expect to get any replies here but thanks Tetra quark (don't be shy) 01:40, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
IIRC the last time this was brought up the consensus was no, but with the caveat that it's context dependent. Simply put, sometimes it should be capitalized, and other times not. In the article, it should mostly be lower case. — Gopher65talk 12:33, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
While I generally favor consistency of use within any given wiki article, chasing after consistency of this issue (U or u for Universe, the Earth or just Earth, etc.) across all wiki articles is probably a waste of time. People tend to take unhelpful strong opinions on these kinds of things, and usually to no positive effect in the end. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 13:04, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

As presented earlier, my own preferences atm may be summarized as follows:

Copied from "Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomy#Capitalize the "U" in "universe" or not?":

FWIW - if not already considered, a relevant reference for the discussion *may* be the "Style Guide for NASA History Authors and Editors" at the following link => - especially? => "Astronomical Bodies: Capitalize the names of planets (e.g. Earth, Mars, Jupiter). Capitalize moon when referring to Earth's Moon, otherwise lowercase moon (e.g. the Moon orbits the Earth, Jupiter's moons). Do not capitalize solar system and universe." (and more? - see link) - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 17:11, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Hope this helps in some way - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 20:30, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Capitalization of universe

There is currently a discussion about the capitalization of Universe at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters § Capitalization of universe. Please feel free to comment there. sroc 💬 13:14, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Discussion of capitalization of universe

There is a request for comment about capitalization of the word universe at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters#Capitalization of universe - request for comment. Please participate. SchreiberBike talk 00:50, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 February 2015

In the Contents section, it looks like the critical density is used as the baryon density from the NASA reference. Could this be checked and corrected if incorrect? <>

Emuspace (talk) 22:22, 17 February 2015 (UTC)emuspace

Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: Edit request templates aren't used for such purpose. When (if) you're ready to request the change, then you can use this template. Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 00:08, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

The comment is correct; I corrected it. —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 01:02, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Universe lead

Perhaps the lead of the Universe article should be much shorter and more concise than the one at present (18 January 2015) - and more like the one not too long ago (2 January 2014) - or even - more like a dictionary definition like those below:

"Universe - The sum of everything that exists in the cosmos, including time and space itself." - Wikipedia Wiktionary

"Universe - All existing matter and space considered as a whole; the cosmos. The universe is believed to be at least 10 billion light years in diameter and contains a vast number of galaxies; it has been expanding since its creation in the Big Bang about 13 billion years ago." - Oxford Dictionary

"Universe - the whole cosmic system of matter and energy of which Earth, and therefore the human race, is a part." - Encyclopedia Britannica

"Universe - all of space and everything in it including stars, planets, galaxies, etc." - Merriam-Webster Dictionary

"Universe - all existing matter and space considered as a whole; the cosmos. The universe is believed to be at least 10 billion light years in diameter and contains a vast number of galaxies; it has been expanding since its creation in the Big Bang about 13 billion years ago." - Google Dictionary

In any case - Hope this helps - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 21:33, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, Drbogdan. I would like to see a lead for Universe that 1.) is a fair summary of the existing content, 2.) points the way to a more balanced depiction of the concept of "universe", by which I mean not focused on just astronomy/astrophysics, 3.) is encompassing of other physical disciplines, including particle physics, 4.) is encompassing of the wider scientific community, including chemistry and life sciences, 5.) is encompassing of philosophical interpretations of the concept of "universe" (capitalized or otherwise). And, because it might become an issue, I just note that this discussion is not necessarily about cosmology pre se. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 01:10, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
We can choose to limit the scope of the article as an editorial decision. :-) Certainly I would prefer not to see philosophical material here (rather than at an article like Universe (philosophy)), except to the degree that it is relevant to our current understanding and its historical antecedents. Sunrise (talk) 21:41, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
The lead is about the right size, so it should not reduced to a single sentence. It should have a sentence on philosophy added, but the other topics wanted by Isambard Kingdom, should first be written about in the article, otherwise there is nothing to summarise in the lead. I think a philosophical section is fair enough, though I suspect what is in there now is not the most relevant to the topic. Where is the source for material for article/s on Living universe, chemical universe, or particle universe? We do have fictional universe though. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:53, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Graeme, I don't know the answer to all your questions, but let me offer partially informed responses: First, in general, it is good that a *finished* article have a lead that is perfectly consistent with the body. I don't, however, know if this article will ever be truly finished, so I would suggest that, as a work in progress, some allowance for things like chemical universe and life in the universe can and should be included in the lead, if only in anticipation of what can and should be included. Although I'm a scientist, I'm a bit concerned that some wikipages take on a momentum of their own, partly depending on which first community first contributed the content. Honestly, the word "universe" is so inclusive it needs, yes, to be flexible for its notion in lots of fields. Now, a bit more specifically, the notion of life in the universe (which assumes conditions tame enough to enable chemistry), how much is out there, how it evolves, is a quite an interesting subject. I think it needs to have a bit of space here (and there is brief discussion of chemistry and life, together with citations to articles that look quite interesting). Otherwise, why have other topics, like stars and galaxies? Those are important too, but not more important than life. The article does have content about particle physics (see section on "laws") and this needs to be "democratically" represented in the lead. Okay, just thoughts. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 22:15, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
I also note that the formation of molecules affect the opacity of the universe. But I might be wrong about this. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 21:50, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
BRIEF Followup - the formation of molecules (see Molecular cloud?) may affect the opacity of the Universe I would think; more clearly, however, seems Cosmic dust (and/or Interstellar dust) may affect such opacity - ( possibly relevant => ) - if interested, molecules in space are in several Wikipedia articles, including => Astrochemistry; Cosmochemistry; List of interstellar and circumstellar molecules; Template:Molecules detected in outer space - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 22:38, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
FWIW - Brief Note re Life in the universe => relevant Wikipedia articles, if not already aware, include: Abiogenesis; Astrobiology; Biogenesis; Biological immortality; Evolution; Extraterrestrial life; Interplanetary contamination; Life; Panspermia - as well as - Life in the universe itself - and many other related articles - hope this helps in some way - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 15:05, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Astroecology. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 20:06, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
I agree. I think the 2 January 2014 version is much better than the present version (although the length is about the same in the two versions). The article overwhelmingly treats the scientific concept of the Universe, so as long as that's true, the lede should reflect that. I'm not sure it really makes sense to spend much effort in this article on non-scientific aspects of the Universe; it seems to me like that would be better split out in a different article. I'll work on restoring the better, older version of the lede, unless there's objection. —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 14:40, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
YES - updating the lede of the Universe article to the "2 January 2014" version seems like an excellent idea - and - has my full support - hope this helps in some way - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 15:44, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
Done. I've incorporated changes over the last year that I think were helpful, but the lede is now much closer to the 2014 January 2 version than it was before. Here's the diff from 2014 January 2 until now.
I've also moved the manifold in two dimensions image back down to the Big Bang section. I did that partly because I disagree with another editor's argument that the image is more welcoming than the image of the CMB from the cosmology template but mostly because I think it doesn't show the whole Universe; it would be more appropriate for the lede of an article on the beginning of the Universe than on Universe. Also, it's a somewhat complicated, technical image, which I don't think is quite right for the lead image of a broad article (the most broad topic on all of Wikipedia, I'd argue, since it's by definition all-encompassing!). Instead, the image of the cosmic microwave background in the cosmology template is the closest thing we have (or are every likely to have) to a single, pretty image that accurately shows the whole Universe in a model-independent way. —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 16:32, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
Note that there's currently nothing about philosophy or anything else; a sentence in the lede summarizing what's in the body of the article wouldn't hurt. Though I'd ask that any new content go in the body, not the lede. —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 16:43, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Any thoughts on the sentence "Related terms include the cosmos, the world, reality, and nature."? Particularly the last three I really don't think are at all "similar" (the wording in place both as of before I rewrote the lede and as of 2014 January 2 until I changed it to "related" just now) to Universe. And world is linked to world (philosophy), which is quite a different context than the scientific context of the rest of that sentence. That difference may be interesting and worth including in the lede, but I'm not sure how to do so. Suggestions? —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 19:42, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done - agree & share your concerns - edited article w/ following summary => "rm text - seems better - and more consistent with the physical, rather than abstract, context - per concerns on talk - *entirely* ok w/ me to rv/mv/ce of course" - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 21:27, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Notification of request for comment

An RfC has been commenced at MOSCAPS Request for comment - Capitalise universe.

Cinderella157 (talk) 03:23, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Lead image

An image of the Hubble Deep Field was recently added before the cosmology infobox. Should it be there? A nearly-identical image is already in the contents section of the article. I think that having this image above the infobox is ugly, and I also think that the image of the cosmic microwave background in the infobox is a better image to represent the whole universe; it's the closest thing we have (or probably will ever have) to a single image of the Universe. I won't make the change myself, as I've been in several edit conflicts with this particular editor recently about a lead image on this page (among other things) and don't want to start another without some consensus first. —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 14:50, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree, we shouldn't have two nearly-identical images in the article. I'm not all that opposed to an introductory image of galaxies, as I think that would more effectively express what the article is about to nonastronomers than the cosmic microwave background image you referred to, but for sure it shouldn't be that image. --ChetvornoTALK 18:23, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
Well, the deep-sky image in the lead is shown again down in the section on "contents". So at least one of them should be deleted. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 23:12, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

To address aesthetic concerns, and partly motivated by the (tiresome) discussion as to whether or not "universe" should be capitalized, I figured if, as many assert, the universe is actually an astronomical object, then it deserves an info box. I inserted one. Please consider if this address concerns raised here, and please consider adding content to the info box. Thanks, Isambard Kingdom (talk) 17:20, 13 March 2015 (UTC) Also, note that I have inserted the image in the info box that @Ashill found attractive. As for whether or not the info box withstands wikiopinion, I don't know. At the very least, I hope it generate some thought. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 01:20, 23 March 2015 (UTC)