This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
In section "Etymology" I have destroyed these sentences:
This section of the article is important. We need some additional input from "linguisticians" and historians. Isambard Kingdom ( talk) 15:24, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
fyi, http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/universe Origin Late Middle English: from Old French univers or Latin universum, neuter of universus 'combined into one, whole', from uni- 'one' + versus 'turned' (past participle of vertere).
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=universe 1580s, "the whole world, cosmos, the totality of existing things," from Old French univers (12c.), from Latin universum "all things, everybody, all people, the whole world," noun use of neuter of adjective universus "all together, all in one, whole, entire, relating to all," literally "turned into one," from unus "one" (see one) + versus, past participle of vertere "to turn" (see versus).
see the paid oxford dictionary etymology: https://qph.is.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-3c1a8d44cdbd865b0073a88b13e30ef2?convert_to_webp=true JScience 02:45, 28 August 2015 (UTC)jcardazzi
There is a discrepancy in diameter distance
In the body:
"The proper distance – .... making the diameter of the observable universe about 91 billion light-years (28×109 pc).'
In the lead:
"The observable universe is about 28 billion parsecs (93 billion light-years) in diameter at the present time."
CuriousMind01 ( talk) 00:56, 5 September 2015 (UTC)CuriousMind01
So if the black hole sucks everything in I think it will create a big bang on the other side So how did the universe exist? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeamsid ( talk • contribs) 04:56, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
I like to draw attention to the book The Quantum Theory of Gravitation (2003) by Vasily Yanchilin and available in the Library of Congress. The author describes the situation beyond the "edge" of the universe as everything loosing speed and direction, getting into a pure quantum mechanical state. The equivalence principle, a base of the general theory of relativity, he calls wrong because a charge in a gravitational field does not radiate while it does when accellerated in a non-inertial system. See for more on this my site www.janjitso.blogspot.com. It is well known that photons are attracted by mass and "outgoing" photons thus would be retarded by the mass of the universe, causing c to become zero at the edge of the universe. This change of c makes correction of the supernova Ia standard necessary and then accellerated expansion of the universe disappears. The principle of least action makes a photon take as big steps (oscillations with low frequency) as possible and a minimum of these. That is possible not quite near a passed mass (where the unit of length decreases and the track gets longer), so the photon takes a curved route, passing in a zone where time runs slower (see page 192 of the book for interpretation of an interval). This is contradicting the standstill of time near a supposed black hole but in accordance with the speed of processes at the enormous concentration around the Big Bang. The latter originating from a point is a mathematical concept since in physics a point does not exist because it has no dimensions. Also Einstein's general theory of relativity is a mathematical one and not revealing the character of gravity. Yanchilin offers as a hypothesis that mass reduces the Heisenberg uncertainty. Then in the half of a particle nearest to an external mass there will be less quantum mechanical transitions towards the farthest half than the other way. Net result is movement of the particle in the direction of the external mass. Thus gravity is explained as a pure quantum mechanical process. Please read the book and report on it in the wikipedia articles. (Changing c causes negative energy to be phantasy). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.171.56.13 ( talk) 18:36, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
Is there a policy about "unnecessary detail"? The lede pic used to include text that put into context the angular diameter of the Hubble Ultra-Deep Field . That was then deleted for having "unnecessary detail" and "not having a reference", I provided a reference and added a short sentence from said reference, thinking that it was an excellent way for the angular diameter, and the pic, to be understood. It was then reverted again for "unnecessary detail". Considering that it involves the caption for the lede pic, consensus here seemed like the way to go. Mophedd ( talk) 06:16, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
The most succinct definition `Universe is the aggregate of all humanity's consciously apprehended and communicated non simultaneous and only partially overlapping experiences. `` - Buckminster Fuller
105.22.72.18 ( talk) 21:05, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
A discussion is needed to gain consensus as to which image should be in the infobox, thoughts ? Mlpearc ( open channel) 16:28, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
Note: Outedexits is a sock of Tetra quark [1], as is a Incendiary_Iconoclasm (who has been editing Universe). Additional relevant discussion pertaining to lead image can be found on the talk page of a Incendiary_Iconoclasm [2] and in previous talk page discussion on the same subject [3]. Isambard Kingdom ( talk) 19:16, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on
Universe. Please take a moment to review
my edit. You may add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 14:07, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
This edit on August 5 2011 made several changes regarding Greek etymology, linking "τὸ πᾶν" to "Pan (mythology)" (incorrect, Pan is likely derived from πάειν), linking to "The All" an article on the Hermetic view of God (non-classic), saying "τὸ ὅλον" is matter (actually it means the whole and matter or wood is ὕλη), saying "τὸ κενόν" is place (unusual, the first meaning of the word κενός is "empty"), and adding transliterations that don't match the Greek. But even the original wording was poor -- Liddell + Scott does not say φύσις means universe, see http://lsj.translatum.gr/wiki/φύσις, or that τὸ πᾶν was the most common term. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peter Gulutzan ( talk • contribs) 19:39, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
you should add more info for kids
In response to this suggestion, you might consider looking at the simple wikipedia site: [4]. Isambard Kingdom ( talk) 17:15, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
Choosing to use a capital U for universe in this article, surely, is this not being a bit overly dramatic? Anonymous123 ( talk) 10:08, 6 October 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.158.134.224 ( talk)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Original: "Further observational improvements led to the realization that our Solar System is located in the Milky Way galaxy and is one of many solar systems and galaxies."
Should be: "Further observational improvements led to the realization that our Solar System is located in the Milky Way galaxy and is one of many solar systems and THE MILKY WAY ONE OF MANY galaxies." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cysus ( talk • contribs)
Can we have a look at this? Presently the first sentence reads "The Universe is all of time and space and its contents." What is "its" referring to? Time and space? If so, then it might be argued that the sentence should read "The Universe is all of time and space and their contents."? This doesn't seem very good to me. Alternatively, we might say "The Universe is all of spacetime and its contents.", but then I wonder if we should be using the concept of "spacetime" in the first sentence of an article that might be read by people unfamiliar with such a concept. A bit of tuning might be in order. Isambard Kingdom ( talk) 14:54, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
What about dark radiation? Isn't it part of the Universe too? 2001:8003:8551:C200:65D4:B3F2:2E0B:F3FE ( talk) 14:39, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
"Thus, in the early part of the matter-dominated era, stable protons and neutrons formed, which then formed atomic nuclei through nuclear reactions." This sentense has a problem. To the best of my layperson knowledge, matter did not dominate the mass-energy density of the universe until 47 thousand years after primordial nucleosynthesis ended. Instead the nucleosynthesis happened during the radiation-dominated era. 2601:441:4102:9010:6C02:87A4:248A:9E70 ( talk) 19:38, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
In section "4.2 Size and regions", the following edit should be made:
Current, erroneous version "the diameter of a typical galaxy is 30,000 light-years (9,198 parsecs), and the typical distance between two neighboring galaxies is 3 million light-years. (919.8 million parsecs)"
Correct version "the diameter of a typical galaxy is 30,000 light-years (9,198 parsecs), and the typical distance between two neighboring galaxies is 3 million light-years. (919.8 kiloparsecs)"
Done Thank you, Isambard Kingdom ( talk) 12:40, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Universe has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
There are few wrong information about the Indian philosophers in the article so, I wish change it. AjayNattanmai0 ( talk) 23:04, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
I think there should be a warning in the beginning that whenever physicist talk about the universe, it is mostly the observable universe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Icantevennnnn ( talk • contribs) 17:27, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Universe. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 21:38, 12 June 2017 (UTC) – Paine Ellsworth put'r there 16:42, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Universe has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
"The Universe is all of space and time (spacetime) and its contents,[12] which includes planets, moons, minor planets, stars, galaxies, the contents of intergalactic space and all matter and energy.[13][14] The size of the entire Universe is still unknown[6] with the latest figure, calculated by Halpern and Tomasello after the data from European Space Agency's Planck satellite estimating it to be 90.68 billion light-years across, 0.7% smaller then previously thought.[15]
I am new to Wiki so not sure how to make this correction. The second sentence in this opening paragraph is incorrect. It should read: "Although the size of the entire Universe is still unknown[6], it is possible to measure the observable universe. Halpern and Tomasello, using data from the European Space Agency's Planck satellite, estimate it to be 90.68 billion light-years across, 0.7% smaller then previously thought.[15]"
It is important to make the distinction between observable universe and entire universe. With my correction, this becomes clear.
Submitted by Seeking Veracity SeekingVeracity ( talk) 01:07, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
The website pointed by reference 5 is old or inaccurate. It states that the extent of the observable Universe is about 156 billion light years, whereas it is a currently more accepted value 91 billion light years using the same reasoning (space expansion during the accepted age of the universe). Please remove. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.0.19.114 ( talk) 22:40, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Universe has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
"The Universe is all of space and time (spacetime) and its contents,[12] which includes planets, moons, minor planets, stars, galaxies, the contents of intergalactic space and all matter and energy.[13][14] The size of the entire Universe is still unknown[6] with the latest figure, calculated by Halpern and Tomasello after the data from European Space Agency's Planck satellite estimating it to be 90.68 billion light-years across, 0.7% smaller then previously thought.[15]
I am new to Wiki so not sure how to make this correction. The second sentence in this opening paragraph is incorrect. It should read: "Although the size of the entire Universe is still unknown[6], it is possible to measure the observable universe. Halpern and Tomasello, using data from the European Space Agency's Planck satellite, estimate it to be 90.68 billion light-years across, 0.7% smaller then previously thought.[15]"
It is important to make the distinction between observable universe and entire universe. With my correction, this becomes clear.
Submitted by Seeking Veracity SeekingVeracity ( talk) 01:07, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
The website pointed by reference 5 is old or inaccurate. It states that the extent of the observable Universe is about 156 billion light years, whereas it is a currently more accepted value 91 billion light years using the same reasoning (space expansion during the accepted age of the universe). Please remove. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.0.19.114 ( talk) 22:40, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
Universe isn't a proper noun, hence the need for universe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.54.207.205 ( talk) 15:12, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Universe. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 01:49, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Universe has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I think 'Contents' is ambiguous as a section heading and in many sections of the text. 'Composition' is what the author was searching for. DarkSky7 ( talk) 04:18, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
@ Rhinopias: As I wrote previously, the definition of the Universe as "all space and time" does not include possible "abstract" or "spiritual" concepts such as, for example, godly beings that may have created such Universe (or even the concepts of math and logic), while the definition as "everything that exists" does so. I'm not biased, don't worry, in real life I'm an atheist. But from a philosophical point of view the two definitions are simply not the same. Besides, you can see that my last version of the Definition section (the one that you just reverted) is exactly the same as the version before, the only difference being that with my edit I mentioned the definition in the lead section. There's really no contradiction with the version you are defending. But mentioning the introductory definiton as a separate thing is nonetheless necessary. Drow ( talk) 22:44, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
I have put myself in the reader's shoes multiple times when thinking about "Besides the introductory definition …" and think that it's confusing and unnecessary and incorrect. Chetvorno's comment makes sense as this article focuses on the physical universe, and not other uses of the word universe, but there is no endpoint to this discussion as it's occurring because the article has to reflect the sources it uses. I cannot find a free online version of the source used for the definition in the lead sentence, but the quote in the reference tag is The totality of all space and time; all that is, has been, and will be which seems to me to be functionally the same as everything that exists, everything that has existed, and everything that will exist in #Definition.
Referring to the first definition in contrast to the second would therefore be incorrect, as the sources don't seem to say they're different. The only reasonable courses of action would be 1) find in these sources (or a new source) a specification that the definition of the physical universe does not include ideas or concepts or gods or 2) find new sources that solely define the Universe explicitly in context of the physical universe without using everything that exists, has, will but is still mainstream (e.g. a more recently published astronomy textbook like the one that's used for the lead's definition). Either way, the whole tense thing should be mentioned because it's clearly common, but maybe there are more recently determined nuances or conditions attached to it that aren't in the article's present sources so we're presenting it incorrectly in 2018.
Maybe the problem is that the final sentence of #Definition is not strict enough: The Universe encompasses all of life, all of history, and some philosophers and scientists suggest that it encompasses ideas such as mathematics and logic. At least two sources agree with the definition as written in the first sentence of #Definition: apparently the offline source used in the lead (which I quoted the quote parameter above, published a little while ago in 1998) and then ref #24 (Vision and Visual Perception By Schreuder) published in 2014 that's attached to the definition in #Definition. Ref #23 (published in 2011) does not mention all tenses but says "the totality of everything that exists". What if the section #Definition begins with the definition that discusses the physical aspect and then mentions the whole exists, has, will thing later, like Schreuder does, and additionally mentions other colloquial uses of the word universe—to mean nature, cosmos, the world—which leads to discussing the inclusion of ideas and concepts and gods by certain philosophers/scientists? Rhinopias ( talk) 22:55, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
@
Chetvorno: I wanted to do that, but according to Rhinopias here we don't have the right to write anything that isn't explicitely in the sources, so I didn't know (and I would not know now) how to include those concepts in the section.
@
Rhinopias: Look, not everyhting have to be explicitely said in the sources. You and I have a head as well. Do you agree with me that
logic exists? hopefully yes. Do you agree with me that mathematics exists? hopefully yes. Do you agree with me that gods and other celestial beings may exist? You can be an atheist to the extent you want (I repeat, I'm one of "them") but you will never have the total and incontrovertible certitude that they do not exist. Now, when you think at the Universe, what is it exactly that you think at? A bunch of stars and galaxies and not much else, right? When you read "the Universe was hot and dense, then it expanded" do you imagine a bunch of angels squeezed in the initial moments of the Big Bang? I don't think so. Now, if we accept the definition "the Universe is everything that exists", you just agreed with me that logic, mathematics and perhaps angels exist, so you must count in the Universe those concepts as well. But then, why is that that for you (very probably) mathematics and angels didn't originate from the Big Bang along with the rest? Do you see the contradiction?
The point is that it may not be explicitely said in the sources, or it can even be that the authors were biased and did not make this reasoning that I just made to you, but this reasoning remains a natural, very natural, consequence of the exact words used to define the Universe. The definition "the Universe is all of space and time" is just consistent with the vision of the Universe that everyone have, the definition "the Universe is the totality of what exists", instead, leads to the considerations I made above. Therefore the two definitions are not the same, because they semantically (! not because the sources say so!) do not unequivocally point at the same thing! The readers have a head and they will make their conclusions on the base of what is written, not on the base of what the authors of the sources may or may not think (namely, that "all of space and time"="everything that exists")!
Now, going back to the actual matter, the edits, I therefore believe that adding the words "in fact" is necessary and desirable, because in that way the text implicitly recognizes that the two definitions of the Universe as "everything that exists" or as "all space and time" can be interpreted differently (semantically) without for that automatically implying that the definition "the Universe is the totality of existence" follows from the text "some philosophers [...] support [...]" (as it would have happened if I wrote: "The Universe is often defined as "the totality of existence": some philosophers and scientists support the inclusion [...]").
As for my point of view, I don't know how to be clearer than this.
Drow (
talk) 11:44, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
As a sidenote, to me, actually, even the definition as "all of space and time" is too large, the Universe should be defined simply as "all of space (and its contents)". But I agree that to change this, new sources have to be provided.
Drow (
talk) 13:47, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
the Universe is defined as everything that exists, has existed, and will exist.The repeating of "everything that", which the article does, isn't in the source. Rhinopias ( talk) 21:53, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
In the Size section appears the FALSE statements:"Distant regions of space are assumed to exist and to be part of reality as much as we are, even though we can never interact with them. The spatial region that we can affect and be affected by is the observable universe." Two problems with it: First is somewhat trivial, some people assume those regions exist, some (many) don't. The problem is, this just pushes the issue from space-time to the meaning of the word "exists". Many (I would hope more than the number who don't) believe that it isn't useful or necessary to believe in things (ideas, theories) which BY DEFINITION can't be confirmed or discomfirmed and have zero relevance. By definition, the existence of space-time outside what we will EVER be able to see (interact with, either directly or indirectly), is such a concept. Once we fall down that rabbit hole, there is no justification for denying the idea that such space-time exists (in a bubble) floating above each of our heads and has angels dancing or contains our souls. It is non-physical. Allowing for its existence is not the same as assuming it does exist. For instance if we claim that the sand on a beach exists as particles which fit into a (log) normal distribution (log-normal distributions are most often found with (macroscopic) particles), then since a Normal distribution is by definition infinite the implication is that there is a non-zero probability (although very, very small) that a boulder the size of Mt. Everest (or the size of the Moon, or Jupiter, or the Milky Way, etc.) might be found. Accepting continuous approximations are often (almost always) much easier than imposing additional constraints. (Sand particles the size of Jupiter or the size of a quark are allowed but NOT assumed). It is true but very, very misleading to state that "Distant regions are assumed to exist". I'd bet dollars to doughnuts that most experts in the area neither assume they do, nor assume they don't exist. The second problem is the clearly wrong/false statement which appears to define the "Observable Universe". The CORRECT definition of the OU is it is all of the space-time that has →ever← interacted with the space-time we occupy. The "size" of that region depends on the model of the universe that is assumed. In the Standard Cosmological Model (lambda-CDM) family of models, exponential expansion at a very early epoch separated regions of space which were (or could have been) interacting with ours to distances outside our cosmological event horizon. That is, the OU INCLUDES spatial regions we CAN NOT affect (not any more, not for the last 13.7 billion years). Our event horizon is 15-20 billion light-years, while the OU is about 40 billion. This means that most of the OU is outside of the region we can affect (or travel to, or see). The two statements are sloppy and factually incorrect. 174.131.63.233 ( talk) 17:10, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Universe has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In 2016, however, the accelerated expansion was disputed measuring much more supernovae Ia.
It should be added at the end of the section "Age and expansion". I have read about it in czech on http://www.osel.cz/9068-za-akceleraci-vesmiru-se-rozdavaly-nobelovky-bude-to-i-za-popreni.html. There was the only reference: J. T. Nielsen et al, Marginal evidence for cosmic acceleration from Type Ia supernovae, Scientific Reports (2016). DOI: 10.1038/srep35596 2A00:1028:919A:DF32:6495:C51C:B55C:D7F1 ( talk) 20:06, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
I have read the original article. So the source is J. T. Nielsen et al, Marginal evidence for cosmic acceleration from Type Ia supernovae, Scientific Reports (2016). DOI: 10.1038/srep35596, and the change should be:
"... which implied that the present-day rate of increase of the Hubble Constant is increasing over time.[14][58]
... which implied that the present-day rate of increase of the Hubble Constant is increasing over time.[14][58] In 2016, with improved analysis of much bigger sample of supernovae Ia, there was found marginal evidence of a bit less than 3 sigma that the expansion is accelerating."
2A00:1028:919A:DF32:B985:6391:64AE:D800 ( talk) 13:31, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
I haven't found any mistake in DOI. I found this one as a reference in the czech article as well as in the original article itself and it worked when I typed in the brouser https://doi.org/10.1038/srep35596. The statement is on page 5 (the beginning of section Discussion). 2A00:1028:919A:DF32:9D6B:DE89:E2:35D7 ( talk) 20:45, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
Where? I have looked for it throught this article and found nothing about constant exansion and the only mention of SNe Ia at the 1998 discovery of accelerated expansion. This new finding that there is only marginal evidence for the 1998 claim (with respect to constant expansion) should be added after that claim. Of course there is no need to add a more proof. 88.102.183.204 ( talk) 14:16, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Universe has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please change "leaved" to "left" in the sentence: "This imbalance between matter and antimatter is partially responsible for the existence of all matter existing today, since matter and antimatter, if equally produced at the Big Bang, would have completely annihilated each other and leaved only photons as a result of their interaction." (#Physical properties, line 3-4) 132.216.68.39 ( talk) 20:12, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
Of their nature, these can't exist, since, of its nature, the universe includes everything. If the universe has something outside it, it's not the universe. The thing we call the universe plus something else is actually the universe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.136.227.224 ( talk) 11:58, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
The first sentence should read... The Universe is all of spacetime and it's contents - including planets, stars, galaxies, and all other forms of matter/energy and information. 2601:580:108:C079:6C87:6E60:21DC:3800 ( talk) 19:15, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
The bar-chart graphic comparing the 13.7 BY Old Universe to Today's, has two horizontal bar graphs. The top bar-graph is drawn to the right proportions, but the Dark Matter content is listed as "23%", whereas it should be "63%". Even better, would be to replace this bar-chart graphic with the actual graphic from the NASA reference #93, which has two pie-charts. Reference #93 is: [1] Waterfall007 ( talk) 11:20, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
References
The article contains the sentence: "equivalent to about 5 protons per cubic meter, which has allowed it to expand for the last 13.8 billion years, giving time to form the universe as observed today.[60]"
and later: corresponding to a density of the order of only one proton for every four cubic meters of volume.[6]
The source [6] may not be a good source (discovery channel) and so this sentence should be removed or corrected. Eduardheindl ( talk) 19:32, 11 January 2019 (UTC)Eduard Heindl
“The Universe is all of space and time[a] and their contents,[10]including planets, stars, galaxies, and all other forms of matter and energy. While the spatial size of the entire Universe is still unknown,[3]it is possible to measure the observable universe.” Wikipedia, google
The keyword is “observable”. The range of “observable” is ever widening, personally, corporately, and universally. If we take a generous bite out of reality and say that humankind uses 15% of its cerebral capacity ... then we are saying that humankind is limited to perceiving only 15% of what is actually going on in all that has been created. Universe (U) = Consummation of Wisdom (CW) U=CW It then begs to be believed that the actual definition of the word, “universe” would be: “A consummation of all the wisdom that is perceived about space, time, and their contents, including planets, stars, galaxies, and all other forms of matter and energy, which represents 15% of what is created.” That is, if we want to be generous.... Verdad...
Thank you, ANIMO! — Preceding unsigned comment added by JenrixReal ( talk • contribs) 20:37, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
“The Universe is all of space and time and their contents"...???
Infinity is the non-existence of a limit and if a non-existence existed it wouldn't be a non-existence. There’s a finite distance between every two points in the cosmos, but there’s no point, however distant, where it ends; there is no all, there’s always more.
Libshoppe (
talk) 18:52, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
The statements
"[...] the Universe has neither an edge nor a center."
and
"space and time emerged [...] with a fixed amount of energy and matter that has become less dense as the Universe has expanded."
doesn't go well together. Mathematically it's problematic to say "fixed amount" for an infinite amount (for the assumption of an infinite universe and a positive density). Also "density" is problematic because inf/inf yields no clear result.
I don't have a better way to say it but maybe someone else has? Florian Finke ( talk) 13:37, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
Recent edits discussing the multiverse have been added and/or removed. It does seem that some mention, maybe a see also could be made, but most of the discussion should go in its own article. Gah4 ( talk) 20:33, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
I am concerned that Oldstone James has been repeatedly [5], [6], [7] adding bolding to a 2nd instance of the word 'universe' in the lead against the opinion of Theroadislong and myself. MOS:BOLDSYN says "Only the first occurrence of the title and significant alternative titles (which should usually also redirect to the article) are placed in bold". The use of the word universe with multiverses is not "significant" or an "alternative title", and it is not a redirect. At most, it is just a slightly different usage of the same word as that in the first sentence. We don't list the title of the article multiple times in boldface just for different usages. -- Chetvorno TALK 20:56, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion on the MOS talk page, in which I and some others contend that the decision to capitalize the word 'universe' was made in haste and poor judgement. To summarize my thoughts, the capitalization of universe stems from the notion that in a multiverse, the universe we live in is only one of many, so we should capitalize it like we capitalize our solar system. This is erroneous, however, as the majority of m-theory models don't depend on there being multiple universes—only separate 'branes' or parallel regions. There are more dimensions than are known but not necessarily universes. The 'universe' per se is more of an infinite. For the purpose of MOS:CELESTIALBODIES, astronomy takes place within the universe, not vice versa. UpdateNerd ( talk) 07:12, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
This section disproportionately represents Islamic beliefs as fact by merely quoting the Quaran. This cannot be put forth as factual inasmuch as any self-contradictions within the Quaran are ignored in this section. ThoughtsInColour ( talk) 15:12, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
{{
See also}}
in the mythology section, or the see-also section itself - the former, probably. --
Begoon 10:16, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
{{
See also}}
for the "Mythology" section. --
Chetvorno
TALK 10:25, 27 October 2019 (UTC)What do you think of changing the first image? I think the current image only shows an arbitrary scale and a small sample of what the universe is. I took the job of making this annotated image that I think would be much more descriptive in a single look at what the universe is. I thank you for your thoughts on this.
File:Extended logarithmic universe illustration.png 🔗
This image is described as: Logarithmic representation of the universe centered on the Solar System, with some notable astronomical objects. Distance from Earth increases exponentially from center to edge. Celestial bodies are shown enlarged to appreciate their shapes. I'm sorry if I don't know the protocols yet, I'm learning to use Wikipedia but I really thought that the current image is dated. Juancalahiton ( talk) 16:34, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
Perhaps it is inevitable on a scientific article of this size and scope, but the introduction paragraph is way too long, I think. Iokerapid ( talk) 04:39, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
Less than 0 degree celsius is ice. But universe average temparture is -273 degree celcius (approx). Ajay ein ( talk) 08:13, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
In the Canadian Journal of Pure and Applied Science the russian scientist Vasily Yanchilin quotes Poincaré, who argued that Riemann geometry need not be necessary if in the euclidian one the unit of length is taken as a variable. Then near mass that unit shortens, atoms become more compact and electrons need more energy to emit light. In other words frequencies get higher and this may have happened in the younger more compact universe all the time. Part of redshift of distant stars then possibly should be attributed to this process. That would be a component in the Hubble. Can wikipedia provide more info? The supernovae Ia do not proove accellerated expansion of the universe if speed of electro magnetic waves was higher in the past. The latter seems to be in accordance with very fast processes in the early very concntrated universe. Its beginning of course cannot be from a point since a point only exists in mathematics and not in physics because it has no dimensions. Wikipedia also may consider writing about dark matter whether it results from dispersed light becoming too weak to react with anything when it reaches the border of the expanding universe, but does not loose its energy. I do not know about wikipedia-talk conditions, so I just mention my name etc.: Jitso Keizer, janjitso@hotmail.com, www.janjitso.blogspot.com. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.83.221.78 ( talk) 20:27, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
Should the lede really have the multiverse hypothesis in the first paragraph? Especially considering it has its fair share of critics. I suggest moving it down to one of the last paragraphs of the lede. 2601:85:C102:1220:7C10:217C:B7AF:CB9B ( talk) 02:29, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Universe has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the sentence “which is one of at least two trillion galaxies in the universe”, change “two trillion” to 200 billion.
See this reference on the Galaxy wiki page: “ In 2021, data from NASA's New Horizons space probe was used to revise the previous estimate of 2 trillion galaxies down to roughly 200 billion galaxies (2×1011).[7]” 108.26.218.231 ( talk) 11:50, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Universe has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
SUGGESTION FOR EDITTING
Change: According to estimation of this theory, space and time emerged together around 13.799±0.021 billion years ago,[2] and the universe has been expanding ever since.
To: According to estimation of this theory, space and time emerged together from an unknown previous state around 13.799±0.021 billion years ago,[2] and the universe has been expanding ever since.
REASONING BEHIND SUGGESTION
(Since the universe is the total of that which exists, not merely the earth or the stars or the galaxies, but everything, whatever its current form or shapeshifting nature, obviously then there can be no such thing as the 'cause' of the universe. To grasp the axiom that the universe exists, means to grasp the fact that nature, i.e., the universe as a whole, cannot be created or annihilated, that it cannot come into or go out of existence. Whether its basic constituent elements are atoms, or subatomic particles, or some yet undiscovered forms of energy, all the countless forms, motions, combinations and dissolutions of elements within the universe, from a floating speck of dust to the formation of a galaxy to the emergence of life, are just caused and determined by the identities of the elements involved.
The concept 'identity' here does not indicate the particular natures of the existents it subsumes; it merely underscores the primary fact that they are what they are. So the universe is the sum of that which is. It is a system of interconnected, interacting entities acting and interacting in accordance with their identities. The universe is a self-sufficient primary. It is not a product of a supernatural dimension, or of anything else. There is nothing antecedent to the universe, nothing apart from it, and no alternative to it. The universe exists, and only the universe exists. It has ever existed, and it will ever exist. Whatever its potentiality or form.)
2A02:A44F:83B3:1:15B4:3486:159E:532C (
talk) 14:17, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
This article must entirely be detect with the word our and us in accordance with WP: Manual of Style. I sought this issue and likely noticed to similar science related articles. Because of this is an encyclopedia, editor should not write such article in his/her perspective otherwise must use quote to demonstrate the speaker idea. The Supermind ( talk) 16:07, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
The spin directions of galaxies correlate with the alignment of the cosmic filament they belong to. Without regard to filament structure, large sky surveys have found small but significant anisotropies in the distribution of galactic spin, which become more pronounced at larger distances.
Shamir, Lior. (2021). Analysis of the Alignment of Non-Random Patterns of Spin Directions in Populations of Spiral Galaxies. Particles 4(1), 11-28; https://doi.org/10.3390/particles4010002 (open access) and references therein.
Based on a large patch of the sky, both the Hubble Space Telescope and the Sloan Digital Sky Survey showed similar large-scale asymmetry with a significant dipole component.
Shamir, L. (2020). Galaxy spin direction distribution in HST and SDSS show similar large-scale asymmetry. Publications of the Astronomical Society of Australia, 37, E053. https://doi.org/10.1017/pasa.2020.46
This concerns visible matter, itself a fraction of the 4.6% of the universe which is not dark energy nor dark matter. 24.64.116.14 ( talk) 19:37, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
The Uchuu simulations: Data Release 1 and dark matter halo concentrations
Link: https://www.inverse.com/science/how-much-matter-in-the-universe
According to a new study, 68.5% percent of the total amount of matter and energy in the universe is dark energy. Should we use this new data? 2001:8003:9008:1301:1086:31F:A6C:F8E2 ( talk) 23:39, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
This article discusses about our Universe, the only universe which we could observe and have solid evidence that it exists. We have capitalised other proper nouns such as Earth, Mars, the Sun, and the Moon etc. I wonder why didn't we capitalise the Universe too?
Even if we have proved the multiverse theory is true (which we haven't), shouldn't we still treat our Universe as a proper noun and capitalise the word nevertheless? 120.16.13.183 ( talk) 02:04, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
Even if the multiverse theory is 100% accurate, the way it is described by writers such as Brian Greene does not negate that there is only one universe. String theory (essentially the basis of M-theory) only says that every possible event occurs—not that they happen in separate universes per se. Essentially, the multiverse would still be a single infinitely varied universe. (The word is defined as all that exists, which there can't be more than one of.) UpdateNerd ( talk) 02:50, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
@ UpdateNerd: Does the above mean you've changed your mind and favor capitalizing "universe"? -- Chetvorno TALK 19:52, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
Upper-casing the common name and scientifically accepted word for "all that is", which seems within the realm of a proper name, goes well with Wikipedia's upper casing guideline. Buckminster Fuller always capitalized it, choosing the time and space twist as a proper name. Randy Kryn ( talk) 20:39, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
Just to be clear, I think all the above arguments are perfectly respectable, and it doesn't look to me like there is a consensus in professional astronomical literature. I don't much care which capitalization we use, but it would be nice to decide on one, so we don't rehash this discussion every 6 months. -- Chetvorno TALK 16:27, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
Capitalising "universe" and claiming it is a proper noun because it is the particular one in which we live is much like capitalising "jack" when I am referring to the particular jack that I own and have in my car. Regards, Cinderella157 ( talk) 23:59, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
This article used capitalised Universe for a long time. I just randomly checked several old revisions between 2013 and 2020, capitalised Universe had been used consistently during this period and no one had disputed its usage. I think someone must have changed it without consensus recently. Here are the links:
2013: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Universe&oldid=531108342
2015: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Universe&oldid=677019618
2018: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Universe&oldid=825142724
2019: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Universe&oldid=898117734
2020: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Universe&oldid=942472119
I reckon we should revert the wording back to its undisputed version until a consensus is reached here. Vic Park ( talk) 06:08, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
Isn't it ironic that an article about everything, ever, anywhere, anywhen, is only a GA, not A or FA, (feel free to remove this once you've read it) an article about everything, that doesn't have enough, Ironic to a fault Erik Sergeant ( talk) 12:10, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
I 76.95.209.17 ( talk) 02:47, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
Article says at the very beginning that "... the cosmic inflation equation indicates that it must have a minimum diameter of 23 trillion light years". I am pretty sure that number 23 trillion doesn't come from inflation theory. It is likely that this number comes from the assumption that universe curves onto itself, and is topologically simple, both of which are extremely strong assumptions (especially the first one), and there is nothing in the data supporting them. To get the number 23 trillion probably the precision of the present day measurement of the curvature of the universe plays crucial role, i.e., how sure we are that Omega=1, which I believe makes the "23 trillion" too arbitrary and dependent on our measuring equipment, so misleading. Taking all this into account, I believe that the sentence should be "While the spatial size of the entire universe is unknown, and may even be infinite [3, 12], it is possible to measure the size of the observable universe, which is approximately 93 billion light-years in diameter at the present day." -- Kkumer ( talk) 10:51, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Universe has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
My Proposal: After nucleosynthesis ended, the universe entered a period known as the photon epoch. During this period, the universe was still far too hot for matter to form neutral atoms, so it contained a hot, dense, foggy plasma of negatively charged electrons, neutral neutrinos and positive nuclei. After about 377,000 years, the universe had cooled enough that electrons and nuclei could form the first stable atoms. Today, the estimated Temperature of the Universe is Approximately -270.4 °C (-454.8 °F). This is known as recombination for historical reasons; in fact, electrons and nuclei were combining for the first time. Unlike plasma, neutral atoms are transparent to many wavelengths of light, so for the first time the universe also became transparent. The photons released ("decoupled") when these atoms formed can still be seen today; they form the cosmic microwave background (CMB).
(Current paragraph does not contain in depth detail of the temperature of the Universe.) 2601:5C7:4100:3600:3CB5:B0FD:516C:D555 ( talk) 02:04, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
Not done - WP:NOTFORUM. The talk page format instructs to "specify what text should be removed and a verbatim copy of the text that should replace it", supported by a WP:RS source. Zefr ( talk) 03:37, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Universe has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
the ∑ is not 1×100 the ∑ is ≈ 5÷ pi×12∑45−1×6÷∞÷∝
If this article is about the entire Universe, would it make sense to expand it to include all articles on Wikipedia, which are contained within the Universe? Or is that a strange idea? Thoughts? 🤔 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:441:4C80:4EB0:74FA:9C0D:D6DF:B66C ( talk) 02:35, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
The article is not bad, but currently lacks citations is several sections. Chronology and the Big Bang is mostly unsourced, with cn and clarification needed tags. Physical properties uses really strange source ("Antimatter". Particle Physics and Astronomy Research Council", see citation 44). Age and expansion ends with a strange sentence This acceleration does not, however, imply that the Hubble parameter is currently increasing; see deceleration parameter for details.
Spacetime has unsourced sentences. Support of life is just a few sentences with really strange sourcing: "Isaak, Mark, ed. (2005). "CI301: The Anthropic Principle". Index to Creationist Claims." (see citation 78). Halfs of Dark energy and Ordinary matter are unsourced. Same for Hadrons.
Historical conceptions are also problematic. Half is unsourced, and the sourced parts are often built on really old sources: see "Stcherbatsky, F. Th. (1930, 1962)" (citation 152), citation 13 lacks year and page, cit 150 lacks year. Astronomical concepts is either unsourced or sourced to "Aristotle; Forster, E. S.; Dobson, J. F. (1914)"; the article abruptly ends with The modern era of physical cosmology began in 1917, when Albert Einstein first applied his general theory of relativity to model the structure and dynamics of the universe.
with nothing about modern era.
I'll ping several editors who used to work with astronomy articles - no obligations of course! - would be great to see more comments. Should the article be brought to GAR?. XOR'easter, CactiStaccingCrane, ComplexRational, Praemonitus, Double sharp, Fountains of Bryn Mawr.
Artem.G ( talk) 08:43, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
The audio recording is about a decade out of date and should be replaced. RPI2026F1 ( talk) 04:04, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
This article begins with: "The universe is all of space and time and their contents, including planets, stars, galaxies, and all other forms of matter and energy."
I seriously doubt that to be a proper description.
I would go for something like: "The universe is a specific part of the omniverse, it's the part we live in. And thus the only part of the omniverse we will theoretically ever be able to perceive or travel. It is one part of a single dual-universe-system containing the part we live in which is mostly filled with normal-matter and a counterpart containing mostly anti-matter".
The problem with that definition is however that most people would not be able to crasp it.... And by definiton will be hard if not impossible to prove as being the proper definition. But then again, who did ever prove that nothing is out there? 77.60.121.89 ( talk) 13:57, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Universe has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The universe is not all of space and time[a] and their contents,[10] including planets, stars, galaxies, and all other forms of matter and energy.
Someone thinks it's opposite day. Thanks for your hard work and dedication. Have a great day. 50.90.103.147 ( talk) 04:17, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
Reinventing cosmology: University Ottawa research puts age of universe at 26.7 billion years
Our universe could be twice as old as current estimates, according to a new study that challenges the dominant cosmological model and sheds new light on the so-called “impossible early galaxy problem.”
There is a parenthetical statement explaining what the dark in dark matter means: “ (dark means that there is a wide range of strong indirect evidence that it exists, but we have not yet detected it directly)”. Dark means we haven’t detected it, sure, but has nothing to do with the rest of that statement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.121.234.94 ( talk) 14:51, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
-- LAZA74 ( talk) 06:06, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
The definition section includes "The universe is often defined as "the totality of existence", or everything that exists, everything that has existed, and everything that will exist".
Using this definition, if multiverses exist, then they are part of our universe. This difference in semantics could be confusing to the reader. Perhaps it would be good to add another paragraph to caveat with a definition that includes the big bang. Lightbloom ( talk) 11:22, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
The word existence has a typo, please fix it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Poketgh ( talk • contribs) 12:57, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
In section "Etymology" I have destroyed these sentences:
This section of the article is important. We need some additional input from "linguisticians" and historians. Isambard Kingdom ( talk) 15:24, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
fyi, http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/universe Origin Late Middle English: from Old French univers or Latin universum, neuter of universus 'combined into one, whole', from uni- 'one' + versus 'turned' (past participle of vertere).
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=universe 1580s, "the whole world, cosmos, the totality of existing things," from Old French univers (12c.), from Latin universum "all things, everybody, all people, the whole world," noun use of neuter of adjective universus "all together, all in one, whole, entire, relating to all," literally "turned into one," from unus "one" (see one) + versus, past participle of vertere "to turn" (see versus).
see the paid oxford dictionary etymology: https://qph.is.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-3c1a8d44cdbd865b0073a88b13e30ef2?convert_to_webp=true JScience 02:45, 28 August 2015 (UTC)jcardazzi
There is a discrepancy in diameter distance
In the body:
"The proper distance – .... making the diameter of the observable universe about 91 billion light-years (28×109 pc).'
In the lead:
"The observable universe is about 28 billion parsecs (93 billion light-years) in diameter at the present time."
CuriousMind01 ( talk) 00:56, 5 September 2015 (UTC)CuriousMind01
So if the black hole sucks everything in I think it will create a big bang on the other side So how did the universe exist? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeamsid ( talk • contribs) 04:56, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
I like to draw attention to the book The Quantum Theory of Gravitation (2003) by Vasily Yanchilin and available in the Library of Congress. The author describes the situation beyond the "edge" of the universe as everything loosing speed and direction, getting into a pure quantum mechanical state. The equivalence principle, a base of the general theory of relativity, he calls wrong because a charge in a gravitational field does not radiate while it does when accellerated in a non-inertial system. See for more on this my site www.janjitso.blogspot.com. It is well known that photons are attracted by mass and "outgoing" photons thus would be retarded by the mass of the universe, causing c to become zero at the edge of the universe. This change of c makes correction of the supernova Ia standard necessary and then accellerated expansion of the universe disappears. The principle of least action makes a photon take as big steps (oscillations with low frequency) as possible and a minimum of these. That is possible not quite near a passed mass (where the unit of length decreases and the track gets longer), so the photon takes a curved route, passing in a zone where time runs slower (see page 192 of the book for interpretation of an interval). This is contradicting the standstill of time near a supposed black hole but in accordance with the speed of processes at the enormous concentration around the Big Bang. The latter originating from a point is a mathematical concept since in physics a point does not exist because it has no dimensions. Also Einstein's general theory of relativity is a mathematical one and not revealing the character of gravity. Yanchilin offers as a hypothesis that mass reduces the Heisenberg uncertainty. Then in the half of a particle nearest to an external mass there will be less quantum mechanical transitions towards the farthest half than the other way. Net result is movement of the particle in the direction of the external mass. Thus gravity is explained as a pure quantum mechanical process. Please read the book and report on it in the wikipedia articles. (Changing c causes negative energy to be phantasy). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.171.56.13 ( talk) 18:36, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
Is there a policy about "unnecessary detail"? The lede pic used to include text that put into context the angular diameter of the Hubble Ultra-Deep Field . That was then deleted for having "unnecessary detail" and "not having a reference", I provided a reference and added a short sentence from said reference, thinking that it was an excellent way for the angular diameter, and the pic, to be understood. It was then reverted again for "unnecessary detail". Considering that it involves the caption for the lede pic, consensus here seemed like the way to go. Mophedd ( talk) 06:16, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
The most succinct definition `Universe is the aggregate of all humanity's consciously apprehended and communicated non simultaneous and only partially overlapping experiences. `` - Buckminster Fuller
105.22.72.18 ( talk) 21:05, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
A discussion is needed to gain consensus as to which image should be in the infobox, thoughts ? Mlpearc ( open channel) 16:28, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
Note: Outedexits is a sock of Tetra quark [1], as is a Incendiary_Iconoclasm (who has been editing Universe). Additional relevant discussion pertaining to lead image can be found on the talk page of a Incendiary_Iconoclasm [2] and in previous talk page discussion on the same subject [3]. Isambard Kingdom ( talk) 19:16, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on
Universe. Please take a moment to review
my edit. You may add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 14:07, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
This edit on August 5 2011 made several changes regarding Greek etymology, linking "τὸ πᾶν" to "Pan (mythology)" (incorrect, Pan is likely derived from πάειν), linking to "The All" an article on the Hermetic view of God (non-classic), saying "τὸ ὅλον" is matter (actually it means the whole and matter or wood is ὕλη), saying "τὸ κενόν" is place (unusual, the first meaning of the word κενός is "empty"), and adding transliterations that don't match the Greek. But even the original wording was poor -- Liddell + Scott does not say φύσις means universe, see http://lsj.translatum.gr/wiki/φύσις, or that τὸ πᾶν was the most common term. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peter Gulutzan ( talk • contribs) 19:39, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
you should add more info for kids
In response to this suggestion, you might consider looking at the simple wikipedia site: [4]. Isambard Kingdom ( talk) 17:15, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
Choosing to use a capital U for universe in this article, surely, is this not being a bit overly dramatic? Anonymous123 ( talk) 10:08, 6 October 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.158.134.224 ( talk)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Original: "Further observational improvements led to the realization that our Solar System is located in the Milky Way galaxy and is one of many solar systems and galaxies."
Should be: "Further observational improvements led to the realization that our Solar System is located in the Milky Way galaxy and is one of many solar systems and THE MILKY WAY ONE OF MANY galaxies." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cysus ( talk • contribs)
Can we have a look at this? Presently the first sentence reads "The Universe is all of time and space and its contents." What is "its" referring to? Time and space? If so, then it might be argued that the sentence should read "The Universe is all of time and space and their contents."? This doesn't seem very good to me. Alternatively, we might say "The Universe is all of spacetime and its contents.", but then I wonder if we should be using the concept of "spacetime" in the first sentence of an article that might be read by people unfamiliar with such a concept. A bit of tuning might be in order. Isambard Kingdom ( talk) 14:54, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
What about dark radiation? Isn't it part of the Universe too? 2001:8003:8551:C200:65D4:B3F2:2E0B:F3FE ( talk) 14:39, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
"Thus, in the early part of the matter-dominated era, stable protons and neutrons formed, which then formed atomic nuclei through nuclear reactions." This sentense has a problem. To the best of my layperson knowledge, matter did not dominate the mass-energy density of the universe until 47 thousand years after primordial nucleosynthesis ended. Instead the nucleosynthesis happened during the radiation-dominated era. 2601:441:4102:9010:6C02:87A4:248A:9E70 ( talk) 19:38, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
In section "4.2 Size and regions", the following edit should be made:
Current, erroneous version "the diameter of a typical galaxy is 30,000 light-years (9,198 parsecs), and the typical distance between two neighboring galaxies is 3 million light-years. (919.8 million parsecs)"
Correct version "the diameter of a typical galaxy is 30,000 light-years (9,198 parsecs), and the typical distance between two neighboring galaxies is 3 million light-years. (919.8 kiloparsecs)"
Done Thank you, Isambard Kingdom ( talk) 12:40, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Universe has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
There are few wrong information about the Indian philosophers in the article so, I wish change it. AjayNattanmai0 ( talk) 23:04, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
I think there should be a warning in the beginning that whenever physicist talk about the universe, it is mostly the observable universe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Icantevennnnn ( talk • contribs) 17:27, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Universe. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 21:38, 12 June 2017 (UTC) – Paine Ellsworth put'r there 16:42, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Universe has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
"The Universe is all of space and time (spacetime) and its contents,[12] which includes planets, moons, minor planets, stars, galaxies, the contents of intergalactic space and all matter and energy.[13][14] The size of the entire Universe is still unknown[6] with the latest figure, calculated by Halpern and Tomasello after the data from European Space Agency's Planck satellite estimating it to be 90.68 billion light-years across, 0.7% smaller then previously thought.[15]
I am new to Wiki so not sure how to make this correction. The second sentence in this opening paragraph is incorrect. It should read: "Although the size of the entire Universe is still unknown[6], it is possible to measure the observable universe. Halpern and Tomasello, using data from the European Space Agency's Planck satellite, estimate it to be 90.68 billion light-years across, 0.7% smaller then previously thought.[15]"
It is important to make the distinction between observable universe and entire universe. With my correction, this becomes clear.
Submitted by Seeking Veracity SeekingVeracity ( talk) 01:07, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
The website pointed by reference 5 is old or inaccurate. It states that the extent of the observable Universe is about 156 billion light years, whereas it is a currently more accepted value 91 billion light years using the same reasoning (space expansion during the accepted age of the universe). Please remove. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.0.19.114 ( talk) 22:40, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Universe has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
"The Universe is all of space and time (spacetime) and its contents,[12] which includes planets, moons, minor planets, stars, galaxies, the contents of intergalactic space and all matter and energy.[13][14] The size of the entire Universe is still unknown[6] with the latest figure, calculated by Halpern and Tomasello after the data from European Space Agency's Planck satellite estimating it to be 90.68 billion light-years across, 0.7% smaller then previously thought.[15]
I am new to Wiki so not sure how to make this correction. The second sentence in this opening paragraph is incorrect. It should read: "Although the size of the entire Universe is still unknown[6], it is possible to measure the observable universe. Halpern and Tomasello, using data from the European Space Agency's Planck satellite, estimate it to be 90.68 billion light-years across, 0.7% smaller then previously thought.[15]"
It is important to make the distinction between observable universe and entire universe. With my correction, this becomes clear.
Submitted by Seeking Veracity SeekingVeracity ( talk) 01:07, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
The website pointed by reference 5 is old or inaccurate. It states that the extent of the observable Universe is about 156 billion light years, whereas it is a currently more accepted value 91 billion light years using the same reasoning (space expansion during the accepted age of the universe). Please remove. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.0.19.114 ( talk) 22:40, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
Universe isn't a proper noun, hence the need for universe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.54.207.205 ( talk) 15:12, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Universe. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 01:49, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Universe has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I think 'Contents' is ambiguous as a section heading and in many sections of the text. 'Composition' is what the author was searching for. DarkSky7 ( talk) 04:18, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
@ Rhinopias: As I wrote previously, the definition of the Universe as "all space and time" does not include possible "abstract" or "spiritual" concepts such as, for example, godly beings that may have created such Universe (or even the concepts of math and logic), while the definition as "everything that exists" does so. I'm not biased, don't worry, in real life I'm an atheist. But from a philosophical point of view the two definitions are simply not the same. Besides, you can see that my last version of the Definition section (the one that you just reverted) is exactly the same as the version before, the only difference being that with my edit I mentioned the definition in the lead section. There's really no contradiction with the version you are defending. But mentioning the introductory definiton as a separate thing is nonetheless necessary. Drow ( talk) 22:44, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
I have put myself in the reader's shoes multiple times when thinking about "Besides the introductory definition …" and think that it's confusing and unnecessary and incorrect. Chetvorno's comment makes sense as this article focuses on the physical universe, and not other uses of the word universe, but there is no endpoint to this discussion as it's occurring because the article has to reflect the sources it uses. I cannot find a free online version of the source used for the definition in the lead sentence, but the quote in the reference tag is The totality of all space and time; all that is, has been, and will be which seems to me to be functionally the same as everything that exists, everything that has existed, and everything that will exist in #Definition.
Referring to the first definition in contrast to the second would therefore be incorrect, as the sources don't seem to say they're different. The only reasonable courses of action would be 1) find in these sources (or a new source) a specification that the definition of the physical universe does not include ideas or concepts or gods or 2) find new sources that solely define the Universe explicitly in context of the physical universe without using everything that exists, has, will but is still mainstream (e.g. a more recently published astronomy textbook like the one that's used for the lead's definition). Either way, the whole tense thing should be mentioned because it's clearly common, but maybe there are more recently determined nuances or conditions attached to it that aren't in the article's present sources so we're presenting it incorrectly in 2018.
Maybe the problem is that the final sentence of #Definition is not strict enough: The Universe encompasses all of life, all of history, and some philosophers and scientists suggest that it encompasses ideas such as mathematics and logic. At least two sources agree with the definition as written in the first sentence of #Definition: apparently the offline source used in the lead (which I quoted the quote parameter above, published a little while ago in 1998) and then ref #24 (Vision and Visual Perception By Schreuder) published in 2014 that's attached to the definition in #Definition. Ref #23 (published in 2011) does not mention all tenses but says "the totality of everything that exists". What if the section #Definition begins with the definition that discusses the physical aspect and then mentions the whole exists, has, will thing later, like Schreuder does, and additionally mentions other colloquial uses of the word universe—to mean nature, cosmos, the world—which leads to discussing the inclusion of ideas and concepts and gods by certain philosophers/scientists? Rhinopias ( talk) 22:55, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
@
Chetvorno: I wanted to do that, but according to Rhinopias here we don't have the right to write anything that isn't explicitely in the sources, so I didn't know (and I would not know now) how to include those concepts in the section.
@
Rhinopias: Look, not everyhting have to be explicitely said in the sources. You and I have a head as well. Do you agree with me that
logic exists? hopefully yes. Do you agree with me that mathematics exists? hopefully yes. Do you agree with me that gods and other celestial beings may exist? You can be an atheist to the extent you want (I repeat, I'm one of "them") but you will never have the total and incontrovertible certitude that they do not exist. Now, when you think at the Universe, what is it exactly that you think at? A bunch of stars and galaxies and not much else, right? When you read "the Universe was hot and dense, then it expanded" do you imagine a bunch of angels squeezed in the initial moments of the Big Bang? I don't think so. Now, if we accept the definition "the Universe is everything that exists", you just agreed with me that logic, mathematics and perhaps angels exist, so you must count in the Universe those concepts as well. But then, why is that that for you (very probably) mathematics and angels didn't originate from the Big Bang along with the rest? Do you see the contradiction?
The point is that it may not be explicitely said in the sources, or it can even be that the authors were biased and did not make this reasoning that I just made to you, but this reasoning remains a natural, very natural, consequence of the exact words used to define the Universe. The definition "the Universe is all of space and time" is just consistent with the vision of the Universe that everyone have, the definition "the Universe is the totality of what exists", instead, leads to the considerations I made above. Therefore the two definitions are not the same, because they semantically (! not because the sources say so!) do not unequivocally point at the same thing! The readers have a head and they will make their conclusions on the base of what is written, not on the base of what the authors of the sources may or may not think (namely, that "all of space and time"="everything that exists")!
Now, going back to the actual matter, the edits, I therefore believe that adding the words "in fact" is necessary and desirable, because in that way the text implicitly recognizes that the two definitions of the Universe as "everything that exists" or as "all space and time" can be interpreted differently (semantically) without for that automatically implying that the definition "the Universe is the totality of existence" follows from the text "some philosophers [...] support [...]" (as it would have happened if I wrote: "The Universe is often defined as "the totality of existence": some philosophers and scientists support the inclusion [...]").
As for my point of view, I don't know how to be clearer than this.
Drow (
talk) 11:44, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
As a sidenote, to me, actually, even the definition as "all of space and time" is too large, the Universe should be defined simply as "all of space (and its contents)". But I agree that to change this, new sources have to be provided.
Drow (
talk) 13:47, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
the Universe is defined as everything that exists, has existed, and will exist.The repeating of "everything that", which the article does, isn't in the source. Rhinopias ( talk) 21:53, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
In the Size section appears the FALSE statements:"Distant regions of space are assumed to exist and to be part of reality as much as we are, even though we can never interact with them. The spatial region that we can affect and be affected by is the observable universe." Two problems with it: First is somewhat trivial, some people assume those regions exist, some (many) don't. The problem is, this just pushes the issue from space-time to the meaning of the word "exists". Many (I would hope more than the number who don't) believe that it isn't useful or necessary to believe in things (ideas, theories) which BY DEFINITION can't be confirmed or discomfirmed and have zero relevance. By definition, the existence of space-time outside what we will EVER be able to see (interact with, either directly or indirectly), is such a concept. Once we fall down that rabbit hole, there is no justification for denying the idea that such space-time exists (in a bubble) floating above each of our heads and has angels dancing or contains our souls. It is non-physical. Allowing for its existence is not the same as assuming it does exist. For instance if we claim that the sand on a beach exists as particles which fit into a (log) normal distribution (log-normal distributions are most often found with (macroscopic) particles), then since a Normal distribution is by definition infinite the implication is that there is a non-zero probability (although very, very small) that a boulder the size of Mt. Everest (or the size of the Moon, or Jupiter, or the Milky Way, etc.) might be found. Accepting continuous approximations are often (almost always) much easier than imposing additional constraints. (Sand particles the size of Jupiter or the size of a quark are allowed but NOT assumed). It is true but very, very misleading to state that "Distant regions are assumed to exist". I'd bet dollars to doughnuts that most experts in the area neither assume they do, nor assume they don't exist. The second problem is the clearly wrong/false statement which appears to define the "Observable Universe". The CORRECT definition of the OU is it is all of the space-time that has →ever← interacted with the space-time we occupy. The "size" of that region depends on the model of the universe that is assumed. In the Standard Cosmological Model (lambda-CDM) family of models, exponential expansion at a very early epoch separated regions of space which were (or could have been) interacting with ours to distances outside our cosmological event horizon. That is, the OU INCLUDES spatial regions we CAN NOT affect (not any more, not for the last 13.7 billion years). Our event horizon is 15-20 billion light-years, while the OU is about 40 billion. This means that most of the OU is outside of the region we can affect (or travel to, or see). The two statements are sloppy and factually incorrect. 174.131.63.233 ( talk) 17:10, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Universe has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In 2016, however, the accelerated expansion was disputed measuring much more supernovae Ia.
It should be added at the end of the section "Age and expansion". I have read about it in czech on http://www.osel.cz/9068-za-akceleraci-vesmiru-se-rozdavaly-nobelovky-bude-to-i-za-popreni.html. There was the only reference: J. T. Nielsen et al, Marginal evidence for cosmic acceleration from Type Ia supernovae, Scientific Reports (2016). DOI: 10.1038/srep35596 2A00:1028:919A:DF32:6495:C51C:B55C:D7F1 ( talk) 20:06, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
I have read the original article. So the source is J. T. Nielsen et al, Marginal evidence for cosmic acceleration from Type Ia supernovae, Scientific Reports (2016). DOI: 10.1038/srep35596, and the change should be:
"... which implied that the present-day rate of increase of the Hubble Constant is increasing over time.[14][58]
... which implied that the present-day rate of increase of the Hubble Constant is increasing over time.[14][58] In 2016, with improved analysis of much bigger sample of supernovae Ia, there was found marginal evidence of a bit less than 3 sigma that the expansion is accelerating."
2A00:1028:919A:DF32:B985:6391:64AE:D800 ( talk) 13:31, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
I haven't found any mistake in DOI. I found this one as a reference in the czech article as well as in the original article itself and it worked when I typed in the brouser https://doi.org/10.1038/srep35596. The statement is on page 5 (the beginning of section Discussion). 2A00:1028:919A:DF32:9D6B:DE89:E2:35D7 ( talk) 20:45, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
Where? I have looked for it throught this article and found nothing about constant exansion and the only mention of SNe Ia at the 1998 discovery of accelerated expansion. This new finding that there is only marginal evidence for the 1998 claim (with respect to constant expansion) should be added after that claim. Of course there is no need to add a more proof. 88.102.183.204 ( talk) 14:16, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Universe has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please change "leaved" to "left" in the sentence: "This imbalance between matter and antimatter is partially responsible for the existence of all matter existing today, since matter and antimatter, if equally produced at the Big Bang, would have completely annihilated each other and leaved only photons as a result of their interaction." (#Physical properties, line 3-4) 132.216.68.39 ( talk) 20:12, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
Of their nature, these can't exist, since, of its nature, the universe includes everything. If the universe has something outside it, it's not the universe. The thing we call the universe plus something else is actually the universe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.136.227.224 ( talk) 11:58, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
The first sentence should read... The Universe is all of spacetime and it's contents - including planets, stars, galaxies, and all other forms of matter/energy and information. 2601:580:108:C079:6C87:6E60:21DC:3800 ( talk) 19:15, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
The bar-chart graphic comparing the 13.7 BY Old Universe to Today's, has two horizontal bar graphs. The top bar-graph is drawn to the right proportions, but the Dark Matter content is listed as "23%", whereas it should be "63%". Even better, would be to replace this bar-chart graphic with the actual graphic from the NASA reference #93, which has two pie-charts. Reference #93 is: [1] Waterfall007 ( talk) 11:20, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
References
The article contains the sentence: "equivalent to about 5 protons per cubic meter, which has allowed it to expand for the last 13.8 billion years, giving time to form the universe as observed today.[60]"
and later: corresponding to a density of the order of only one proton for every four cubic meters of volume.[6]
The source [6] may not be a good source (discovery channel) and so this sentence should be removed or corrected. Eduardheindl ( talk) 19:32, 11 January 2019 (UTC)Eduard Heindl
“The Universe is all of space and time[a] and their contents,[10]including planets, stars, galaxies, and all other forms of matter and energy. While the spatial size of the entire Universe is still unknown,[3]it is possible to measure the observable universe.” Wikipedia, google
The keyword is “observable”. The range of “observable” is ever widening, personally, corporately, and universally. If we take a generous bite out of reality and say that humankind uses 15% of its cerebral capacity ... then we are saying that humankind is limited to perceiving only 15% of what is actually going on in all that has been created. Universe (U) = Consummation of Wisdom (CW) U=CW It then begs to be believed that the actual definition of the word, “universe” would be: “A consummation of all the wisdom that is perceived about space, time, and their contents, including planets, stars, galaxies, and all other forms of matter and energy, which represents 15% of what is created.” That is, if we want to be generous.... Verdad...
Thank you, ANIMO! — Preceding unsigned comment added by JenrixReal ( talk • contribs) 20:37, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
“The Universe is all of space and time and their contents"...???
Infinity is the non-existence of a limit and if a non-existence existed it wouldn't be a non-existence. There’s a finite distance between every two points in the cosmos, but there’s no point, however distant, where it ends; there is no all, there’s always more.
Libshoppe (
talk) 18:52, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
The statements
"[...] the Universe has neither an edge nor a center."
and
"space and time emerged [...] with a fixed amount of energy and matter that has become less dense as the Universe has expanded."
doesn't go well together. Mathematically it's problematic to say "fixed amount" for an infinite amount (for the assumption of an infinite universe and a positive density). Also "density" is problematic because inf/inf yields no clear result.
I don't have a better way to say it but maybe someone else has? Florian Finke ( talk) 13:37, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
Recent edits discussing the multiverse have been added and/or removed. It does seem that some mention, maybe a see also could be made, but most of the discussion should go in its own article. Gah4 ( talk) 20:33, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
I am concerned that Oldstone James has been repeatedly [5], [6], [7] adding bolding to a 2nd instance of the word 'universe' in the lead against the opinion of Theroadislong and myself. MOS:BOLDSYN says "Only the first occurrence of the title and significant alternative titles (which should usually also redirect to the article) are placed in bold". The use of the word universe with multiverses is not "significant" or an "alternative title", and it is not a redirect. At most, it is just a slightly different usage of the same word as that in the first sentence. We don't list the title of the article multiple times in boldface just for different usages. -- Chetvorno TALK 20:56, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion on the MOS talk page, in which I and some others contend that the decision to capitalize the word 'universe' was made in haste and poor judgement. To summarize my thoughts, the capitalization of universe stems from the notion that in a multiverse, the universe we live in is only one of many, so we should capitalize it like we capitalize our solar system. This is erroneous, however, as the majority of m-theory models don't depend on there being multiple universes—only separate 'branes' or parallel regions. There are more dimensions than are known but not necessarily universes. The 'universe' per se is more of an infinite. For the purpose of MOS:CELESTIALBODIES, astronomy takes place within the universe, not vice versa. UpdateNerd ( talk) 07:12, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
This section disproportionately represents Islamic beliefs as fact by merely quoting the Quaran. This cannot be put forth as factual inasmuch as any self-contradictions within the Quaran are ignored in this section. ThoughtsInColour ( talk) 15:12, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
{{
See also}}
in the mythology section, or the see-also section itself - the former, probably. --
Begoon 10:16, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
{{
See also}}
for the "Mythology" section. --
Chetvorno
TALK 10:25, 27 October 2019 (UTC)What do you think of changing the first image? I think the current image only shows an arbitrary scale and a small sample of what the universe is. I took the job of making this annotated image that I think would be much more descriptive in a single look at what the universe is. I thank you for your thoughts on this.
File:Extended logarithmic universe illustration.png 🔗
This image is described as: Logarithmic representation of the universe centered on the Solar System, with some notable astronomical objects. Distance from Earth increases exponentially from center to edge. Celestial bodies are shown enlarged to appreciate their shapes. I'm sorry if I don't know the protocols yet, I'm learning to use Wikipedia but I really thought that the current image is dated. Juancalahiton ( talk) 16:34, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
Perhaps it is inevitable on a scientific article of this size and scope, but the introduction paragraph is way too long, I think. Iokerapid ( talk) 04:39, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
Less than 0 degree celsius is ice. But universe average temparture is -273 degree celcius (approx). Ajay ein ( talk) 08:13, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
In the Canadian Journal of Pure and Applied Science the russian scientist Vasily Yanchilin quotes Poincaré, who argued that Riemann geometry need not be necessary if in the euclidian one the unit of length is taken as a variable. Then near mass that unit shortens, atoms become more compact and electrons need more energy to emit light. In other words frequencies get higher and this may have happened in the younger more compact universe all the time. Part of redshift of distant stars then possibly should be attributed to this process. That would be a component in the Hubble. Can wikipedia provide more info? The supernovae Ia do not proove accellerated expansion of the universe if speed of electro magnetic waves was higher in the past. The latter seems to be in accordance with very fast processes in the early very concntrated universe. Its beginning of course cannot be from a point since a point only exists in mathematics and not in physics because it has no dimensions. Wikipedia also may consider writing about dark matter whether it results from dispersed light becoming too weak to react with anything when it reaches the border of the expanding universe, but does not loose its energy. I do not know about wikipedia-talk conditions, so I just mention my name etc.: Jitso Keizer, janjitso@hotmail.com, www.janjitso.blogspot.com. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.83.221.78 ( talk) 20:27, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
Should the lede really have the multiverse hypothesis in the first paragraph? Especially considering it has its fair share of critics. I suggest moving it down to one of the last paragraphs of the lede. 2601:85:C102:1220:7C10:217C:B7AF:CB9B ( talk) 02:29, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Universe has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the sentence “which is one of at least two trillion galaxies in the universe”, change “two trillion” to 200 billion.
See this reference on the Galaxy wiki page: “ In 2021, data from NASA's New Horizons space probe was used to revise the previous estimate of 2 trillion galaxies down to roughly 200 billion galaxies (2×1011).[7]” 108.26.218.231 ( talk) 11:50, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Universe has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
SUGGESTION FOR EDITTING
Change: According to estimation of this theory, space and time emerged together around 13.799±0.021 billion years ago,[2] and the universe has been expanding ever since.
To: According to estimation of this theory, space and time emerged together from an unknown previous state around 13.799±0.021 billion years ago,[2] and the universe has been expanding ever since.
REASONING BEHIND SUGGESTION
(Since the universe is the total of that which exists, not merely the earth or the stars or the galaxies, but everything, whatever its current form or shapeshifting nature, obviously then there can be no such thing as the 'cause' of the universe. To grasp the axiom that the universe exists, means to grasp the fact that nature, i.e., the universe as a whole, cannot be created or annihilated, that it cannot come into or go out of existence. Whether its basic constituent elements are atoms, or subatomic particles, or some yet undiscovered forms of energy, all the countless forms, motions, combinations and dissolutions of elements within the universe, from a floating speck of dust to the formation of a galaxy to the emergence of life, are just caused and determined by the identities of the elements involved.
The concept 'identity' here does not indicate the particular natures of the existents it subsumes; it merely underscores the primary fact that they are what they are. So the universe is the sum of that which is. It is a system of interconnected, interacting entities acting and interacting in accordance with their identities. The universe is a self-sufficient primary. It is not a product of a supernatural dimension, or of anything else. There is nothing antecedent to the universe, nothing apart from it, and no alternative to it. The universe exists, and only the universe exists. It has ever existed, and it will ever exist. Whatever its potentiality or form.)
2A02:A44F:83B3:1:15B4:3486:159E:532C (
talk) 14:17, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
This article must entirely be detect with the word our and us in accordance with WP: Manual of Style. I sought this issue and likely noticed to similar science related articles. Because of this is an encyclopedia, editor should not write such article in his/her perspective otherwise must use quote to demonstrate the speaker idea. The Supermind ( talk) 16:07, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
The spin directions of galaxies correlate with the alignment of the cosmic filament they belong to. Without regard to filament structure, large sky surveys have found small but significant anisotropies in the distribution of galactic spin, which become more pronounced at larger distances.
Shamir, Lior. (2021). Analysis of the Alignment of Non-Random Patterns of Spin Directions in Populations of Spiral Galaxies. Particles 4(1), 11-28; https://doi.org/10.3390/particles4010002 (open access) and references therein.
Based on a large patch of the sky, both the Hubble Space Telescope and the Sloan Digital Sky Survey showed similar large-scale asymmetry with a significant dipole component.
Shamir, L. (2020). Galaxy spin direction distribution in HST and SDSS show similar large-scale asymmetry. Publications of the Astronomical Society of Australia, 37, E053. https://doi.org/10.1017/pasa.2020.46
This concerns visible matter, itself a fraction of the 4.6% of the universe which is not dark energy nor dark matter. 24.64.116.14 ( talk) 19:37, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
The Uchuu simulations: Data Release 1 and dark matter halo concentrations
Link: https://www.inverse.com/science/how-much-matter-in-the-universe
According to a new study, 68.5% percent of the total amount of matter and energy in the universe is dark energy. Should we use this new data? 2001:8003:9008:1301:1086:31F:A6C:F8E2 ( talk) 23:39, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
This article discusses about our Universe, the only universe which we could observe and have solid evidence that it exists. We have capitalised other proper nouns such as Earth, Mars, the Sun, and the Moon etc. I wonder why didn't we capitalise the Universe too?
Even if we have proved the multiverse theory is true (which we haven't), shouldn't we still treat our Universe as a proper noun and capitalise the word nevertheless? 120.16.13.183 ( talk) 02:04, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
Even if the multiverse theory is 100% accurate, the way it is described by writers such as Brian Greene does not negate that there is only one universe. String theory (essentially the basis of M-theory) only says that every possible event occurs—not that they happen in separate universes per se. Essentially, the multiverse would still be a single infinitely varied universe. (The word is defined as all that exists, which there can't be more than one of.) UpdateNerd ( talk) 02:50, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
@ UpdateNerd: Does the above mean you've changed your mind and favor capitalizing "universe"? -- Chetvorno TALK 19:52, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
Upper-casing the common name and scientifically accepted word for "all that is", which seems within the realm of a proper name, goes well with Wikipedia's upper casing guideline. Buckminster Fuller always capitalized it, choosing the time and space twist as a proper name. Randy Kryn ( talk) 20:39, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
Just to be clear, I think all the above arguments are perfectly respectable, and it doesn't look to me like there is a consensus in professional astronomical literature. I don't much care which capitalization we use, but it would be nice to decide on one, so we don't rehash this discussion every 6 months. -- Chetvorno TALK 16:27, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
Capitalising "universe" and claiming it is a proper noun because it is the particular one in which we live is much like capitalising "jack" when I am referring to the particular jack that I own and have in my car. Regards, Cinderella157 ( talk) 23:59, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
This article used capitalised Universe for a long time. I just randomly checked several old revisions between 2013 and 2020, capitalised Universe had been used consistently during this period and no one had disputed its usage. I think someone must have changed it without consensus recently. Here are the links:
2013: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Universe&oldid=531108342
2015: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Universe&oldid=677019618
2018: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Universe&oldid=825142724
2019: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Universe&oldid=898117734
2020: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Universe&oldid=942472119
I reckon we should revert the wording back to its undisputed version until a consensus is reached here. Vic Park ( talk) 06:08, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
Isn't it ironic that an article about everything, ever, anywhere, anywhen, is only a GA, not A or FA, (feel free to remove this once you've read it) an article about everything, that doesn't have enough, Ironic to a fault Erik Sergeant ( talk) 12:10, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
I 76.95.209.17 ( talk) 02:47, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
Article says at the very beginning that "... the cosmic inflation equation indicates that it must have a minimum diameter of 23 trillion light years". I am pretty sure that number 23 trillion doesn't come from inflation theory. It is likely that this number comes from the assumption that universe curves onto itself, and is topologically simple, both of which are extremely strong assumptions (especially the first one), and there is nothing in the data supporting them. To get the number 23 trillion probably the precision of the present day measurement of the curvature of the universe plays crucial role, i.e., how sure we are that Omega=1, which I believe makes the "23 trillion" too arbitrary and dependent on our measuring equipment, so misleading. Taking all this into account, I believe that the sentence should be "While the spatial size of the entire universe is unknown, and may even be infinite [3, 12], it is possible to measure the size of the observable universe, which is approximately 93 billion light-years in diameter at the present day." -- Kkumer ( talk) 10:51, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Universe has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
My Proposal: After nucleosynthesis ended, the universe entered a period known as the photon epoch. During this period, the universe was still far too hot for matter to form neutral atoms, so it contained a hot, dense, foggy plasma of negatively charged electrons, neutral neutrinos and positive nuclei. After about 377,000 years, the universe had cooled enough that electrons and nuclei could form the first stable atoms. Today, the estimated Temperature of the Universe is Approximately -270.4 °C (-454.8 °F). This is known as recombination for historical reasons; in fact, electrons and nuclei were combining for the first time. Unlike plasma, neutral atoms are transparent to many wavelengths of light, so for the first time the universe also became transparent. The photons released ("decoupled") when these atoms formed can still be seen today; they form the cosmic microwave background (CMB).
(Current paragraph does not contain in depth detail of the temperature of the Universe.) 2601:5C7:4100:3600:3CB5:B0FD:516C:D555 ( talk) 02:04, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
Not done - WP:NOTFORUM. The talk page format instructs to "specify what text should be removed and a verbatim copy of the text that should replace it", supported by a WP:RS source. Zefr ( talk) 03:37, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Universe has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
the ∑ is not 1×100 the ∑ is ≈ 5÷ pi×12∑45−1×6÷∞÷∝
If this article is about the entire Universe, would it make sense to expand it to include all articles on Wikipedia, which are contained within the Universe? Or is that a strange idea? Thoughts? 🤔 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:441:4C80:4EB0:74FA:9C0D:D6DF:B66C ( talk) 02:35, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
The article is not bad, but currently lacks citations is several sections. Chronology and the Big Bang is mostly unsourced, with cn and clarification needed tags. Physical properties uses really strange source ("Antimatter". Particle Physics and Astronomy Research Council", see citation 44). Age and expansion ends with a strange sentence This acceleration does not, however, imply that the Hubble parameter is currently increasing; see deceleration parameter for details.
Spacetime has unsourced sentences. Support of life is just a few sentences with really strange sourcing: "Isaak, Mark, ed. (2005). "CI301: The Anthropic Principle". Index to Creationist Claims." (see citation 78). Halfs of Dark energy and Ordinary matter are unsourced. Same for Hadrons.
Historical conceptions are also problematic. Half is unsourced, and the sourced parts are often built on really old sources: see "Stcherbatsky, F. Th. (1930, 1962)" (citation 152), citation 13 lacks year and page, cit 150 lacks year. Astronomical concepts is either unsourced or sourced to "Aristotle; Forster, E. S.; Dobson, J. F. (1914)"; the article abruptly ends with The modern era of physical cosmology began in 1917, when Albert Einstein first applied his general theory of relativity to model the structure and dynamics of the universe.
with nothing about modern era.
I'll ping several editors who used to work with astronomy articles - no obligations of course! - would be great to see more comments. Should the article be brought to GAR?. XOR'easter, CactiStaccingCrane, ComplexRational, Praemonitus, Double sharp, Fountains of Bryn Mawr.
Artem.G ( talk) 08:43, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
The audio recording is about a decade out of date and should be replaced. RPI2026F1 ( talk) 04:04, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
This article begins with: "The universe is all of space and time and their contents, including planets, stars, galaxies, and all other forms of matter and energy."
I seriously doubt that to be a proper description.
I would go for something like: "The universe is a specific part of the omniverse, it's the part we live in. And thus the only part of the omniverse we will theoretically ever be able to perceive or travel. It is one part of a single dual-universe-system containing the part we live in which is mostly filled with normal-matter and a counterpart containing mostly anti-matter".
The problem with that definition is however that most people would not be able to crasp it.... And by definiton will be hard if not impossible to prove as being the proper definition. But then again, who did ever prove that nothing is out there? 77.60.121.89 ( talk) 13:57, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Universe has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The universe is not all of space and time[a] and their contents,[10] including planets, stars, galaxies, and all other forms of matter and energy.
Someone thinks it's opposite day. Thanks for your hard work and dedication. Have a great day. 50.90.103.147 ( talk) 04:17, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
Reinventing cosmology: University Ottawa research puts age of universe at 26.7 billion years
Our universe could be twice as old as current estimates, according to a new study that challenges the dominant cosmological model and sheds new light on the so-called “impossible early galaxy problem.”
There is a parenthetical statement explaining what the dark in dark matter means: “ (dark means that there is a wide range of strong indirect evidence that it exists, but we have not yet detected it directly)”. Dark means we haven’t detected it, sure, but has nothing to do with the rest of that statement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.121.234.94 ( talk) 14:51, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
-- LAZA74 ( talk) 06:06, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
The definition section includes "The universe is often defined as "the totality of existence", or everything that exists, everything that has existed, and everything that will exist".
Using this definition, if multiverses exist, then they are part of our universe. This difference in semantics could be confusing to the reader. Perhaps it would be good to add another paragraph to caveat with a definition that includes the big bang. Lightbloom ( talk) 11:22, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
The word existence has a typo, please fix it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Poketgh ( talk • contribs) 12:57, 4 December 2023 (UTC)