Talk:Universe/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Etymology and Latin

In section "Etymology" I have destroyed these sentences:

The Latin word derives from the poetic contraction unvorsum — first used by Lucretius in Book IV (line 262) of his De rerum natura (On the Nature of Things) — which connects un, uni (the combining form of unus, or "one") with vorsum, versum (a noun made from the perfect passive participle of vertere, meaning "something rotated, rolled, changed").[27] An alternative interpretation of unvorsum is "everything rotated as one" or "everything rotated by one". In this sense, it may be considered a translation of an earlier Greek word for the Universe, περιφορά, (periforá, "circumambulation"), originally used to describe a course of a meal, the food being carried around the circle of dinner guests.[28] This Greek word refers to celestial spheres, an early Greek model of the Universe. Regarding Plato's Metaphor of the Sun, Aristotle suggests that the rotation of the sphere of fixed stars inspired by the prime mover motivates, in turn, terrestrial change via the Sun.[29] Astronomical and physical measurements, such as the Foucault pendulum, demonstrate that the Earth rotates on its axis.

Words don't derive from contractions of words, it's the other way around.

According to a note in the Leonard + Smith edition of De Rerum Natura, Lucretius was using unorsum (sic) there to mean "the aggregate", i.e. the collective force and effect of wind and cold, in a passage that had nothing to do with the universe. Lucretius was not the first to use a variant of the word "universus", it's in Terence. Perhaps somewhere else Lucretius used the noun universum meaning universe, but as far as I know he preferred phrases like "rerum summa" (sum of things) or "omne quod est" (all that exists) and he even used the Greek τὸ πᾶν.

The words in quotes "something rotated, rolled, changed" are followed by a cite to Lewis + Short, but are not in Lewis + Short, at least not in the online edition.

It's interesting to "consider" that universum means everything-rotated-as-one and is a translation of περιφορά, but there's no evidence presented that Romans or later scholars ever made such a consideration. Liddell and Scott http://lsj.translatum.gr/wiki/περιφορά say the Greek word can mean "revolving vault of heaven", but they don't say it was an early word for the universe. And without the tie-in to περιφορά, the sentences about celestial spheres and Foucault are not relevant to etymology. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:10, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

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

Diameter discrepancy

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

It's a conversion issue in the source. The primary number cited in the source is 28 billion parsecs. 93 billion light years appears to be a conversion error in the source, since 1 pc = 3.26156 ly, and 28*3.26156 = 91.32368. I would take the 28 Gpc number and do a correct conversion to ly, unless there's a source that indicates that 28 Gpc is in fact in error. —Alex (Ashill | talk | contribs) 01:59, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

The two significant digits figure of 28 pc is consistent with a two significant converted figure of 90 ly to 93 ly, while the two significant digits figure of 93 ly is consistent with a two significant converted figure of 28 pc to 29 pc. So there is no conversion error in the source. The issues are merely questions of rounding. It is quite possible that the primary sources on which Bars and Terning relied cited figures in the range of 28.36 to 28.49 pc. I do not believe that we are justified in second-guessing Bars and Terning on this. Their book is from 2009, so undoubtedly more recent figures exist, and we are making a mountain out of a molehill. The diameter is, after all, not the result of direct measurement, but requires various secondary assumptions in its derivation. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 10:17, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Black hole and the Big Bang.

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)

outside the universe: chaos

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)

Here it is on Amazon; it looks pretty obscure. I see we have an article on the author, but the sorry state of its referencing doesn't give me much confidence, either. IP, is there any evidence that this theory has gained traction in the scientific community to the extent that it merits mention in this article? VQuakr (talk) 18:44, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Policy on "unnecessary detail"?

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)

Definition

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)

Imho, there could indeed be a section with such definitions, but requires sourcing. prokaryotes (talk) 21:39, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes I should have linked the source: -

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o6yaSLipeWg

There are two places where he discusses the definition, at 1h12m14s, he outlines how he arrived at the definition. Then at 1h45m30s he provides the definition.

His definition is important because its all inclusive, including both the physical and the metaphysical, i.e. all that can be measured and that, that can not be measured. Without both components neither of the parts can be apprehended.

--Tusk Bilasimo (talk) 19:55, & unsigned minor adjustments by Tusk Bilasimo, 19:56, :57, :58, & :59, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

   I disagree that it's "important", bcz the accompanying primary-topic article is clearly an astronomical one, and mention of what is metaphysical is ... uh ... like mentioning the Xmas tree (beyond "can accomodate an 8' spruce) in describing the architecture of your house. If there isn't a Dab entry for Universe (metaphysics), Universe (philosophy) or their existing equivalent, that's where the Fuller quote could arguably be "important" if someone cares enuf to create it.
--Jerzy•t 18:49, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

   Agree w/ Pks, w/ condition that non-poetic astrophysicists shd precede the poetic astrophysicists (who should be followed by the non-astrophysicists -- whether poetic or not).
--Jerzy•t 15:56, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Infobox image

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)

@Mlpearc: The current image of the CMB is way too confusing for the average reader. It is much more relevant to add an actual picture of the universe, with galaxies, etc. I want your opinion on this too. What do you think? Outedexits (talk) 16:43, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

@Outedexits: I tend to agree but, I'm really not interested in the outcome, I just want to help settle the dispute. Please discuss this with editors who regularly edit this page. Cheers, Mlpearc (open channel) 17:00, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

It's ok. I'm curious to know more opinions, actually. Outedexits (talk) 18:42, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

The CMB image is perfectly relevant to the article, the version edited in, only shows a small portion of the Universe. David J Johnson (talk) 19:07, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

I would be okay with either, but I weakly prefer the Hubble image. I think it will be more relevant to general readers. Both images are excellent for the introduction; whichever is chosen for the infobox, the other could be put just below it. I think a more detailed explanatory caption below each image could make them more understandable to nontechnical readers. I added to the caption of the Hubble image currently in the infobox. --Chetvorno^TALK 20:04, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

So what? The CMB image shows the entire universe, but it is not very meaningful. Using an actual photo showing what the universe looks like on average is much more interesting than an ellipse with some random green and red in it. Cheers. Outedexits (talk) 20:15, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

That was basically my point above. --Chetvorno^TALK 20:25, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I know. I actually thought about saying I agreed with you. I'm not sure why I decided not to say it. Outedexits (talk) 20:42, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

I think I will chime in with my opinion, I like the Hubble image, it shows the actual image of space which I think would be better for readers. Mlpearc (open channel) 23:59, 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)

This discussion is about the infobox image, not blocked users. I still prefer the Hubble image as I stated above. Mlpearc (open channel) 20:01, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

I prefer the UDF as well.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  20:20, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

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:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.pparc.ac.uk/Ps/bbs/bbs_antimatter.asp
• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://maeresearch.ucsd.edu/~cgibson/Documents2007/PapersAList%20copy/MiscellaneousPapers/Jeans1902.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.  OUR Wikipedia (not "mine")! Paine  02:54, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:07, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Synonyms and Greek

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)

SENSE

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)

Already done by Chetvorno (talk). And thank you for pointing that out! regards, DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 07:00, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

First sentence.

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)

Hasn't the lead been pretty thoroughly discussed? I think the current lead was decided in this discussion: Talk:Universe/Archive_3#An_issue_with_the_definition, which you participated in. It seems to me that the consensus was that the definition needed to be limited to the contents of spacetime (as opposed to more inclusive definitions of "everything") but that, as you say, the technical word "spacetime" was not going to be familiar to general readers, so it was replaced with "time and space and its contents". I feel that's a pretty good compromise. I don't care what possessive pronoun is used, "its" or "theirs" is fine. --Chetvorno^TALK 17:57, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I recall that discussion. I raised it because another editor recently made a change to the first sentence, and I did't want to just brush it off. At the same time, I acknowledge that this issue has been pretty much beaten up. Thanks, Isambard Kingdom (talk) 18:44, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Ah, I see. --Chetvorno^TALK 04:49, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Space and time are two things, but all of them is just one everything. Sometimes it's hard to think of "all" as a noun because it doesn't have a clear shape or colour, but once you get over that hump, the Universe makes sense. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:38, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Dark radiation

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)

See the section "Dark energy". --Chetvorno^TALK 16:42, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Chronology and the Big Bang

"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)

Minor scaling typo to be corrected, please.

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)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 April 2017

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)

 Not done You need to specify exactly what you want us to change. Holy Goo (talk) 23:12, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Observable Universe

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)

I agree that scientists often talk about the observable universe; however, I see no need for such a "warning" in this article, because they also often talk about the Universe as a whole, that is, the concept of "all there is".  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  15:52, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

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:

• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/5lLRguF0I?url=http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SpeedOfLight/FTL.html to http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SpeedOfLight/FTL.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061013042057/http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2001-1/index.html to http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2001-1/index.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:38, 12 June 2017 (UTC) –  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  16:42, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 November 2017

"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)

Done Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:53, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Reference 5 is old or inaccurate

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)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 November 2017

"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)

Done Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:53, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Reference 5 is old or inaccurate

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)

typography

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)

I was actually coming here to question that. "Universe" can be a proper noun, but it seems to be rendered lowercase throughout the encyclopedia, including in article titles containing the word. Is it necessary for "Universe" to remain capitalized in this article? Joefromrandb (talk) 13:13, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

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:

• Added archive http://arquivo.pt/wayback/20160515100124/http://physicstoday.org/journals/doc/PHTOAD-ft/vol_57/iss_5/10_1.shtml to http://physicstoday.org/journals/doc/PHTOAD-ft/vol_57/iss_5/10_1.shtml
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SpeedOfLight/FTL.html

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).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:49, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 February 2018

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)

 Done I agree. Contents changed to Composition Spintendo ᔦᔭ 07:27, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Universe as "everything that exists" or as "all space and time"

@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)

@Drow: referring to the lead from a different section doesn't really make sense, as the lead should just summarize the article without adding anything. If there is truly a problem with the definition as it is worded in #Definition, then one of the definitions should be altered so that they mean the same thing.

First, the definition in #Definition can only be changed if the text it's changed to still reflects the sources it uses unless others are provided. Your previous change here doesn't match the source's text of "is commonly defined as". The definition in the lead seems to use a different source so that the definition can be more explicit than "everything" but still simple, and should appropriately be expanded upon in #Definition. (As I'm quite certain this section should exist to elaborate upon the definition. I reverted your removal of the entire section because I'm under the impression that the definition of the universe is a significant topic in discussing the universe.) Second, I now understand what you were trying to say with the god comment, but I think you're finding meaning in the text that isn't there. "Everything that exists" means everything that exists, without admitting the existence of God, so I don't think your concern is warranted. But, once again, it's what the source says is the definition. Rhinopias (talk) 23:01, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

@Rhinopias:"Your previous change here doesn't match the source's text of "is commonly defined as"""

I agree, that's why I never dreamt of reverting your revert (no pun intended) and opted for this change, instead. But this last change is not in conflict with anything you said, while at the same time it resolves the issue. The two definitions are different, I'm afraid: to see it, it is sufficient to look at the meaning of every single used word in both definitions. So, established that this change is not in contradiction with the version you are defending, and established that I'm spending a lot of effort trying to constructively improve the page, do I have the permission to revert said page back to this version? Drow (talk) 23:26, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

@Rhinopias: Oh, right, I forgot the first part of your response: "referring to the lead from a different section doesn't really make sense, as the lead should just summarize the article without adding anything. If there is truly a problem with the definition as it is worded in #Definition, then one of the definitions should be altered so that they mean the same thing". The Wikipedia guidelines are exactly that: guidelines. Not laws, not obligations. I think that in our case this overrides the fact that the lead should only summarize, since we are confronting ourselves with a problem of consistency and logic. Drow (talk) 23:34, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

You don't need my permission, but I suggested you take your proposed changes to the talk page to help us avoid edit warring. Referring to the lead section from a section of body text just doesn't make sense. (If the article is appropriately constructed, which this one is – see its GA status.) I don't even know if it's explicitly written in the Manual of Style, it's common sense… Besides the introductory definition doesn't even explicitly point a reader to the first sentence of the article; "introductory" could mean multiple things. WP:IAR is policy for improving the encyclopedia, which I'm arguing this change does not do seeing as I reverted it. (But, also, there's no rule here to ignore.)

I just don't see how that improves the article, but the opposite by potentially confusing readers. After the "everything" definition in #Definition, it goes on to talk about energy, which is what the lead sentence talks about. I'm not comfortable altering these sentences/definitions myself to appease your concerns (which I'm still not positive are concrete enough to alter anything) because I'm not familiar with the source material right now. Rhinopias (talk) 23:55, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Drow (I think; I didn't quite follow your conversation). The "Everything that exists, has existed, and will exist" definition does not agree with the introductory "all of space and time" definition, as it could include concepts like God, ideas, mathematics, etc. It is a minority definition, often held by "holistic" type philosophers. By far the most common definition is the physical universe. I think maybe some wording should be added to the "Definition" section to make that clear. ----Chetvorno^TALK 03:01, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

@Chetvorno: Thanks.

@Rhinopias: I think you should try to put yourself from the perspective of a person who is reading the page for the first time (I always do that before saving an edit): namely, go here and start to carefully read from the top downwards until you reach the end of the Definition section. I think that then "Besides the introductory definition..." will become perfectly clear and senseful, since you will have provided a necessary context for it. Try. Drow (talk) 13:46, 17 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)

I'm still not clear on what it is you think is wrong with the current wording and how you'd like to change it. Can you give some examples? ----Chetvorno^TALK 00:54, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Chetvorno's comment makes sense

Seriously?? Look, I've been trying to say the same exact thing as the one written by Chetvorno for days now. Yes, the point is that in #Definition the definition given is not centered on the physical Universe (if the use of the specific word physical is so much important to you) and is significantly wider (and therefore different), yes.

What if the section #Definition begins with the definition that discusses the physical aspect and then mentions the whole exists, has, will thing later

In essence that is exactly what I wanted to do. Whether we completely agree on it it will depend solely on how exactly you intend to rephrase the section, as Chetvorno asked. Drow (talk) 11:21, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

If that's what you wanted to do, then why didn't you attempt to rewrite the section instead of deleting it or adding some incomprehensible reference to earlier text in the article? All you had to do was suggest a specific rewrite when you initially created this section on the talk page and we would've been finished "days" ago. (It's literally been two days. Please calm down.) Italics doesn't effectively emphasize anything if you overuse it. I don't need you to repeat my text back to me, because I haven't been repeating myself outside of continuing to tell you what I disagree with and then met with the same suggestion. I'm only here because I disagreed with your edits to the article, so the burden to suggest improvements to the section is really yours, but how's this? Because I decided to just try to rectify your concerns myself. Rhinopias (talk) 04:11, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

@Chetvorno: is the Britannica reference needed? It seems to only include matter, energy, Earth, and the human race in its definition which seem to all be supported from the two dictionary references. Unless you meant to reference a later part of the article? Rhinopias (talk) 04:15, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

@Rhinopias: Thanks. Sorry for the rant. I made some edits, feel free to review or discuss them. Drow (talk) 14:31, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Made a couple small edits but also reinstated this sentence. (Removed in this edit.) The Schreuder reference says this definition is used "customarily", which means commonly. Unless there is a source to suggest otherwise (that it is not used frequently), this definition is an interesting specification of "totality of everything", explicitly defining that everything in the past and present and future is included in "the Universe". If it isn't contested that "time" is included in the definition (which I don't think should be contested), then all tenses being included in a definition make sense... this sentence itself does not imply ideas or concepts, but if it does to the reader it is specified immediately after that "some" experts support that and not all. If you feel it needs to specify that "most scientists do not support …" then that needs to be found in a source, as opposed to the current way in which sources are used to demonstrate a minority inclusion but may not specify that the majority do not. Rhinopias (talk) 04:42, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

@Rhinopias: I think the Britannica reference is more authoritative than the other two. --Chetvorno^TALK 19:23, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

@Drow: Your current version looks pretty good to me. I like the simplification of the lead sentence. What do you think about adding the word "God" to the phrase "mathematics and logic" in the 3rd sentence in #Definition section to give WP:due weight to the spiritually-inclined interpretations of the word? --Chetvorno^TALK 19:23, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Do you have access to the second and third refs attached to the sentence to determine that the sources explicitly say god is included in the "concepts and ideas"? Rhinopias (talk) 04:42, 20 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)

You don't need to be clearer than that because you just demonstrated that you have absolutely no understanding of the core content policies No original research and Verifiability, which explains why my attempts have not been successful in suggesting that your desired changes—no matter how accurate or supposedly helpful they may be—must reflect the sources present in the article. I agree that common sense most definitely exists, but Wikipedia doesn't publish our common sense or WP:SYNTHESIS. To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented. You really might want to revisit Look, not everyhting have to be explicitely said in the sources and The point is that it may not be explicitely said in the sources and, most hilariously, as if I'm acting as some sort of Wikipedia source vigilante in repeating myself over and over the project's most basic content policies, 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.

Regarding your most recent edits, I did not write this article nor am I an expert in the subject, so I have no authority to suggest manipulations to this article beyond what the sources explicitly say. If you have a problem with a source then find us a better one, but the source says that definition is commonly used. (And the editor who wrote this good article included the definition in it relatively recently, in 2015.) I still don't think its potential inclusion of deities is relevant. If gods exist then they're included in everything, if they don't exist then they're not included in it. "Everything" is descriptive, not prescriptive. Not even sure what to say to your "all of space and time"="everything that exists" because you haven't seemed to have had a problem with the lead's simplification until just now.

• Not sure why you put quotation marks around the everything definition, when it's not a direct quote from the source...
• You did not satisfactorily explain why my concern (which I wrote here) with the use of "in fact" is not a concern. I'm not sure why you're so into that phrase, because in my opinion it makes it sound like you support the inclusion of that in the definition since that's how the phrase "in fact" is typically used. ("In fact, people do support this.") If you absolutely have to connect it to the definition that uses everything, something more explicit like "Though the use of everything may imply the inclusion of ideas and concepts beyond physical components, only some scientists and philosophers support this" would be clearer. However, this would be original research.
• I don't understand your persistence with "abstract concept". Your explanation is they 'are' abstract, you can't see or shake your hand to logic or mathematics, but that makes no sense because you cannot shake hands with or touch a concept, let alone an abstract one. Which definition of abstract are you using? If it's just to denote that it's not a concrete object, doesn't the word concept already fulfill that? I'd argue that "difficult to understand" is a common use of the word, but I don't see how that applies to mathematics or logic.
• Does it make sense to have electromagnetic radiation and matter, the examples of energy, in parentheses when the less significant examples of matter are not in parentheses?
• Half of all normal matter seems to be included in intergalactic space, so did you have a reason for removing the term from the list?
• Does The Universe includes also the physical laws really sound better than what I had there?

I'm not really sure where this is going. You seem to be stuck on this concept thing but that's not going to change without the sources changing, and you're not going to let me introduce changes in an attempt to appease you without reverting or unnecessarily rewriting what I write. If you're just going to make edits that introduce inaccuracies or original research then I'll end my involvement so I can work on other things. Rhinopias (talk) 23:05, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Ok... Fine. I think that I'll let go this thing of the definition. Your interpretation of the "No original research" policy still seems a bit too restrictive to me, but I guess you're right. In response to your concerns in the bullet list (I'm not an expert of the Wikipedia code as you are, so I'll just use the symbol #):

1. The quotation marks are not strictly necessary, but I thought that it would have been better to put them around that sentence because said sentence is a direct quote of its source.
2. "Though the use of everything may imply the inclusion of ideas and concepts beyond physical components, only some scientists and philosophers support this". You caught what I meant. As an alternative to "In fact", I would have inserted some version of this text.
3. Too long to explain...
4. I'll make some edits to appease this concern of yours
5. The intergalactic space is automatically included in the moment you say "the physical Universe is all of space"
6. No... It just seems to me that my version gives more "fluidity" to the text, since it is a little bit more straightforward.

Drow (talk) 19:52, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

I disagree that I'm even interpreting the policy. The sentence I pasted here from it is in the first paragraph of the policy's page. It'd be one thing if you were clearly making an improvement to the article and suggesting we ignore all rules, but going against a source in the article because we just don't like it isn't how Wikipedia's articles are written, even if we know better or more than the source. Also, I'm no expert; it's a template called {{bulleted list}}. Not really sure why I'm using it, though, because I could've just used an asterisk on each line for bullets like you can with the pound sign for numbers.

I'm not going to fight you on the "in fact" because I don't think it's worth our time. Maybe someone else will jump in. The quote, however, is not a direct quote… from the source (p. 135): 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)

Size - completely and unquestionably WRONG

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)

...and trees that fall in forests with nobody to hear them don't make any noise. --Chetvorno^TALK 01:07, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

I am not an expert, or even amateur in this, but as I understand it, it relates to expansion just after the big bang. There are non-obvious questions, such as what does the universe expand into? Even more, as I understand it, the universe can expand faster than the speed of light. SR limits the speed within the universe, but not of the universe. Gah4 (talk) 06:59, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

@Gah4: The universe doesn't expand "into" anything, it is space itself, the distance between objects, that expands; see Expansion of the universe. The error that 174.131.63.233 is making is that just because a portion of space within our universe is outside our light cone, i.e. unobservable from Earth, is no reason to believe it does not exist. That is the point the quote at top is making, and it is supported by cosmologists. Because widely enough separated parts of the universe are expanding with proper motion faster than light, there are parts of the universe which will never be in causal connection. However according to the mathematics they are still part of our spacetime, and objects in them obey the same physical laws. There are also "multiverse" cosmological models in which there may be multiple spacetimes which are not connected topologically, each with different physical laws. The existence of these separate spacetimes cannot be proven, because the current astronomical evidence is not sufficient to determine whether the multiverse model describes reality or not. But within our own spacetime, there is no reason to believe the region outside our "observable universe" is much different from the region inside, containing stars, planets, galaxies, etc. --Chetvorno^TALK 12:05, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

I think mostly that is what I meant, even if I didn't say it so well. Gah4 (talk) 14:41, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 May 2018

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)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Sam Sailor 21:15, 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)

 Not done: The digital object identifier you have proposed as a reference is invalid. Please indicate the correct DOI, including the page number where the reference is made.  spintendo  05:23, 24 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)

 Already done This information already exists in the article, and it's already referenced. So it's not entirely clear what you want to add from this reference that isn't already covered by other sources. If it's just the reference you want added to compound the number of sources, I believe the claim has enough. These claims are already broadly accepted, and there doesn't seem to be a need here to add more citations in order to substantiate that which is already widely substantiated. (See WP:TOOMANYREFS.) The further questions of constant rate expansion versus accelerated expansion are covered more broadly in the Expansion of the universe article, and thus if any need exists there, the desire to add the additional information from this source should be directed towards that article, rather than this one.  spintendo  22:15, 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)

 Not done No consensus to make change. Fish+Karate 13:21, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 August 2018

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)

 Done Danski454 (talk) 21:10, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

multiverses

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)

It's the same with the idea of an expanding universe. The thing which the so-called expanding universe expands into is actually the rest of the universe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.136.227.224 (talk) 12:01, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

No, the word Universe, which originally meant "everything there is", has come to mean our contiguous spacetime. To discuss the possibility of there being multiple disconnected spacetimes, rather than change the common meaning of the word Universe, introducing two conflicting meanings which would be confusing, the cosmological community has invented a new word for this new concept: Multiverse.

This is a very common problem in science; as advances in scientific knowledge expand the definition of existing things, rather than change the meaning of existing words science usually prefers to create neologisms; new words for the new concepts. For example, in taxonomy the word species used to mean the lowest level of the taxonomic hierarchy; a group of organisms that could interbreed. Earlier this century it was found that for thousands of species, separate populations of the same species divided by geographic barriers like mountains had grown genetically different enough that they could no longer interbreed. Rather than change thousands of species names to genus, requiring the rewriting of thousands of biology books, biologists created a new taxonomic level below "species": the subspecies, so the species name did not have to change. But as a result, the word species no longer necessarily has its original definition; a population that can interbreed.

Similarly the word atom meant "indivisible" in Greek; atoms were originally defined to be the smallest particles of matter. Then around the turn of the century it was discovered that the atom could be divided; it was composed of smaller particles. Rather than redefine the word "atom" to mean these smaller "indivisible" particles, new names were created for these particles: electrons, protons, and neutrons. But as a result the word atom no longer means "indivisible".

Similarly, the word World used to mean what Universe means now, "everything there is". In the Dark Ages, it was believed that the celestial bodies like the Sun, stars and planets were gods, and forever beyond our mortal reach; therefore our world was "everything there is". In the 1700s astronomers discovered that the planets were other "worlds" like our own. Therefore the word "world" changed to mean "planet", one of many, and a new word was invented to mean the totality of everything there is: Universe. --Chetvorno^TALK 13:41, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected Edit request 9.4.18 - The Universe is all of spacetime and...all other forms of matter/energy and information

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 lead sentence has been discussed extensively on this page. "Space and time" was used because "spacetime" is a technical word that general readers may not understand. My feeling is that the word "information" raises ambiguities and should not be added. --Chetvorno^TALK 16:21, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Graphic per reference 93 needs "23" changed to "63"

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: Waterfall007 (talk) 11:20, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

References

Proton density

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

A FLAW IN THE DEFINITION

    “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) 

I think this article is more about the universe as we assume it exists from our observations.

The observable universe is that part of the universe we can in theory make observations from (given the universal speed limit of information).

While our ability to perceive, imagine and describe things is limited we can still assume those things exists as an entirety including the parts we didn't perceive yet or even think we never can. So our "mental capacity" and the size of the observable universe are quite unrelated.

I may be wrong but feel this disagreement comes from Constructivism compared to Naturalism.

I absolutely agree with this article mainly discussing the naturalistic variant (though I wouldn't mind pointing out that the universe would be a very different thing from a constructivistic point of view at some point). Florian Finke (talk) 13:06, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

All?

“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 extend of space and/or time is not known AFAIK. But there is no clue to assume there is a limit, so - until further clues are given - it is assumed that it has non.

Maybe it helps to see it as an "infinite set that doesn't contain infinity" like real or natural numbers.

They contain an unlimited amount of elements but no element with an infinite value yet their measure is still called infinite.

(I'm not happy with this different meanings of "infinite" but stuff happens :p) Florian Finke (talk) 13:23, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Problematic statements

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)

The fact that the Universe has "neither an edge nor a center" doesn't automatically mean that it is infinite. The surface of a sphere has neither an edge nor a center, yet it's finite. Drow (talk) 11:34, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

And the "density" of the universe can be given an adequately precise meaning, as the average of the ratio of mass to volume over sufficiently large but finite volumes. --Chetvorno^TALK 02:51, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

multiverse

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)

There is a mention of the theory at the end of the introduction, with a link to Multiverse, plus the section Universe#Multiverse hypothesis in the body. Or are you saying the article should have less content about multiverses? --Chetvorno^TALK 21:18, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Looks fine to me. I wondered what others thought it might need or not need. Gah4 (talk) 22:44, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

I suppose I would like to see a

See also: multiverse

but otherwise it seems fine. Gah4 (talk) 22:49, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

That would be fine with me. --Chetvorno^TALK 05:27, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

I added multiverse to the See also section, and it was removed with the edit summary: (this is not a WP:RS). Are See also entries supposed to be WP:RS?

No, it was most certainly an error.^Ol^Ja 22:29, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Bolding on 2nd occurance of 'universe'

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)

The thing is: the Universe and a universe are not the same word or thing, which makes Theroadislong's edit summary irrelevant, as a universe (with a lowercase 'u') is indeed a different title to the Universe. To address your issue, I see no reason why it can't be considered a significant alternative. It is both significant (the multiverse has its own Wiki page and even section in this article) and an alternative, as the definition of 'the Universe' is obviously different to that of 'a universe'. That said, I have no time nor energy to discuss this issue in any more depth, and so will be fine leaving the article as it is if you or Theroadislong don't agree with me.^Ol^Ja 21:41, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

You have missed the point entirely, did you read MOS:BOLDSYN? Theroadislong (talk) 21:56, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Capitalization of Universe

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)

• I usually don't upper case 'universe' when I see it but can easily understand how it is a proper name and upper casing is fine for Wikipedia style. The Universe (Buckminster Fuller used to just say 'Universe' without a 'the') is definable. So yes, astronomy takes place within the universe, and as the universe is a definable thing, it could easily be termed a proper name. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:24, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

I did a (unsystematic) Google search of recent astronomical books, focusing on professional books on cosmology, to see whether the text capitalizes the word "universe":

Books that capitalize:

• Liddle (2015) An Introduction to Modern Cosmology
• Kolata (2015) Elementary Cosmology: From Aristotle's Universe to the Big Bang and Beyond
• Adams, Cayless (2004) An Introduction to Galaxies and Cosmology
• Parnowsky (2017) How The Universe Works: Introduction To Modern Cosmology
• Eales (2007) Origins: How the Planets, Stars, Galaxies, and the Universe Began
• Schneider (2007) Extragalactic Astronomy and Cosmology: An Introduction
• Gasperini (2008) The Universe Before the Big Bang: Cosmology and String Theory

Books that don't capitalize

• Hawking (1995) A Brief History of Time
• Greene (2003) The Elegant Universe
• Barrow (2011) The Book of Universes: Exploring the Limits of the Cosmos
• Guth (1998) The Inflationary Universe
• Linde (2012) Inflation and Quantum Cosmology
• Fraser (2006) The Cosmos: A Historical Perspective
• Pincock, Frary (2011) The Origins of the Universe for Dummies
• Ratcliffe (2009) Cosmology and the Evolution of the Universe
• Morison (2013) Introduction to Cosmology and Astronomy
• Bojowald (2011) Quantum Cosmology: A Fundamental Description of the Universe
• Dunkley (2019) Our Universe: An Astromer's Guide
• Rees (2012) Universe: The Definitive Visual Guide

It doesn't look to me as though there is a consensus in professional astronomical literature. Although more of these books used the uncapitalized version "universe" it should be noted that this list is heavy on cosmology, many having chapters on multiverse theories. In general, I think texts on cosmology prefer the uncapitalized word, where texts on general and observational astronomy, which are focused on our own spacetime, prefer the capitalized version. Also note that when discussing mathematical models of the Universe (of which there are of course many), the uncapitalized word is used, as in: "Eddington characterized the de Sitter universe as motion without matter" --Chetvorno^TALK 13:53, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

The change to "Universe" within this article happened in 2012 because Wiktionary, A change to/from "Universe" for Wikipedia articles in general was the subject of lengthy discussions for WP:MOS, you can find a list of them here if you skip to the last post in the thread. Of course some of the arguments were about what was more common. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:59, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

I've never heard of any of the authors that capitalize it in the above list. The much more relevant authors are those such as Hawking, Greene, Guth, and Linde, all of whom discuss multiverse models, and would be the most likely to capitalize our universe if that was the correct thing to do. UpdateNerd (talk) 20:31, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

It seems to me that if we are going to base our decision on usage we shouldn't limit our consideration to those authors who "discuss multiverse models" but look at usage throughout the astronomical field. Multiverse theory is only one area within cosmology, which is only one area within astronomy, and most astronomical research, and therefore most professional use of the word "universe", focuses on our own universe. I personally do not have a preference as to whether to capitalize the word, I would just like to see the issue resolved one way or the other.--Chetvorno^TALK 14:06, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Pardon me for being overspecific about those authors dealing with the multiverse. The authors who keep the word lower-case deal with cosmology, while I have no idea what the fields of expertise are for the authors who capitalize it. We should be using the convention used by relevant scholars, not just the majority (which also favors lower case). Capitalizing 'Universe' has the unintended effect of personifying the concept, which should be avoided. I haven't heard any good explanation of why it's being done that way or even why it was changed to begin with. UpdateNerd (talk) 06:51, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

@UpdateNerd: If you "...have no idea" what other fields are in astronomy besides cosmology, maybe you shouldn't be participating in this discussion. Astronomers who study "our" universe, which are all astronomers besides a small number of cosmologists working on multiverse theory, are just as "relevant" scholarly users of the word, in my opinion. You say "I haven't heard any good explanation of why it [the capitalization of the word] is being done that way...". The explanation is pretty simple for anyone who has an elementary school knowledge of English. A proper noun, which names a unique entity, is capitalized, while a common noun, which names an entity which is one of a class, is not. Before multiverse theories, it was believed that the universe was singular, so it was capitalized. Multiverse theories propose that our universe is one of many, but these are recent ideas, and there is no experimental support for them, so the field has not come to a consensus on whether to use "Universe" or "universe" yet. Capitalizing "personifies the concept"??? Please. Does capitalizing Alpha Centauri personify it? --Chetvorno^TALK 20:09, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

@Chetvorno: That's a misrepresentation of my views and the basic facts. I only brought up multiverse theoreticians to debunk that they actually refer to more than one universe. It's helpful shorthand to talk about other 'regions' as parallel universes, but they're actually just different parts of the same universe from what is known to us. That's important to understand to get where I'm coming from. To reiterate: multiverse cosmologists generally refer to massive areas within one universe.

Now, the notion that "it was believed that the universe was singular, so it was capitalized" is baseless. The word has generally been lower case, just as "the sun" and "the earth" were generally lower case until the Internet boom and the decision of space agency websites to capitalize astronomical bodies for convenience. Your point about the universe being a proper noun is the best argument I've heard so far (Randy Kryn also mentioned it above). But I'm not sure that it's a proper noun. Incidentally, wiktionary doesn't currently capitalize the word in general usage, only when referring to ours. Again, I assert that the distinction between general/proper usage is based on the false notion that m- or string theory truly say anything about there being more than one universe, at least that can ever be proven from within our own. UpdateNerd (talk) 20:41, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Islamic Concept Of The Universe

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)

ThoughtsInColour, Agreed - it's not appropriate for this article at all to describe in detail a single religion's belief structure with no real context. I removed it. -- Begoon 07:12, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Agreed, although a brief mention of Islamic (as well as Christian) cosmologies might be appropriate in the "Mythologies" section. --Chetvorno^TALK 16:00, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

And Buddhist, Hindu, Jain, Jewish, Pastafarian...? There are a lot of religions, and having a view on Life, the universe and everything is kinda what they do... Perhaps it's possible to do something that's "inclusive" and brief - but don't lets dare leave one out, eh? Glancing at the section a few are already mentioned a little, largely "creation" oriented... -- Begoon 16:15, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Seems to me that a separate article on it might be reasonable, and I suppose for each other religion's interpretation, but not here. Gah4 (talk) 19:45, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, that would be fine. It's not that the information isn't useful, important or interesting, just that it's not a good "fit" for this article and in any case to try and do it all justice here would be unworkable. -- Begoon 06:36, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

If someone does write such an article, how should it be referenced from here? Maybe a see also? Gah4 (talk) 08:34, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, either as a {{See also}} in the mythology section, or the see-also section itself - the former, probably. -- Begoon 10:16, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Actually the articles (more than one) already exist: Cosmogony and Religious cosmology. They should be in the {{See also}} for the "Mythology" section. --Chetvorno^TALK 10:25, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

First image

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)

You've obviously put a lot of effort into it, and it's good quality, and interesting. I'm just not sure the logarithmic scale and relative sizes of the depicted items are going to be intuitively grasped and understood by the average reader. If anything, to a casual observer with limited understanding of the concepts, it might seem to say "well, it's not such a big thing after all, this universe thing..." It doesn't, to me, do anything to convey the vast scales involved, or the huge, empty distances between objects - if anything it obscures them - it looks very...full. I think the logarithmic representation is an interesting idea, but I'm just not sure this gets the (non-intuitive to the layman) concept across sufficiently well to be appropriate as the first thing one looks at in the article. I could easily see myself hanging a print of this on my office wall, and enjoying it - it's a very nice image indeed - but as the lead image of this article I'm not convinced. -- Begoon 17:20, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Begoon. It's a beautiful piece of artwork, but the logarithmic scaling is not going to be understood by many (most?) of the general readers, who come to this page for a simple comprehensible exposition of the subject. The Hubble deep field photo is a better introductory image, showing a view into the deepest reaches of the universe that we can see. --Chetvorno^TALK 08:24, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Nice image. Maybe down near the end of the page where there aren't as many images as near the top, with an adequate explanatory caption. I'm interested in studying your image further with an explanation, nice work! Randy Kryn (talk) 08:56, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Thank you! In fact I am not the author of the image. I only know the author's work and asked him for a borderless version for this article. He accessed and uploaded it and I programmed the clickable annotations for each celestial body. But I understand what you exposed about the logarithmic scale being not as graspable as a fixed scale. Well here I leave in the code the annotations in case it seems to you that some article can benefit from this. Thanks for the feedback friends! Juancalahiton (talk) 18:30, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Lead is too long

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)

Temperature in universe

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)

the Hubble and delta l

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)

Multiverse

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)

It is also mentioned at the end of the lede, so I think the multiverse sentence in the opening paragraph can simply be deleted. It could be replaced with a sentence about the Big Bang, subsequent expansion, and age, which does deserve to be mentioned right up front, I think. —Alex (Ashill | talk | contribs) 03:56, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

I support either of the above changes --Chetvorno^TALK 05:11, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Done. I agree with the above comment that the lede is rather long (evidenced by the fact that we now have a brief introduction of the Big Bang which then gets further detail later in the lede before further detail in the main article), so a wholesale edit wouldn’t be a bad thing. But I think the lede reads rather well despite its length. —Alex (Ashill | talk | contribs) 07:04, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 March 2021

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)

 Done. Volteer1 (talk) 05:42, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 March 2021

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)

 Not done: Well, "an unknown previous state" would seem to imply there was a "before the big bang", which doesn't seem to agree with current scientific consensus that allows for either possibility. Wikipedia does not publish original research, however well thought out you see your philosophy to be, we just go off what reliable sources say. Volteer1 (talk) 14:37, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Troubled with first person pronoun

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)

Be aware that every policy and guideline is to be applied with common sense and exceptions may always apply. Now, ask yourself the following question: is it likely that the English Wikipedia is likely to have readers from another universe? If not, then quit your worrying, and have a far out day ;P Firejuggler86 (talk) 23:36, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Angular momentum

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)

Add links? Should the links to the Uchuu Universe simulations be added?

The Uchuu simulations: Data Release 1 and dark matter halo concentrations

1. https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article-abstract/506/3/4210/6307536?redirectedFrom=fulltext
2. https://github.com/uchuuproject — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.11.252.45 (talk) 19:06, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

68.5% of the universe is dark energy

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)

Why is the word Universe not capitalised in this article?

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)

Manual of Style/Capital letters#Celestial bodies says "The words sun, earth, moon and solar system are capitalized (as proper names) when used to refer to a specific celestial body in an astronomical context". There's no mention of the word but I would think this also applies to "universe".

There are previous discussions of the capitalization issue in MOS/Celestial bodies and on this page in Archive 4. In the latter I surveyed a bunch of astronomy books and found that there seems to be no consensus; some books capitalize "universe" and some don't. NASA style guide apparently says not to capitalize “universe" but the European space agency does. In general I support your point of view and would like to see it capitalized, but UpdateNerd felt strongly that it shouldn't be. Most important is to make a decision so we can achieve consistency between articles and not keep wasting time debating this.--Chetvorno^TALK 02:22, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

I agree as a personal preference that the Universe, the universe we live in, is a proper name and should be capitalized in that context. I also agree that this is a significant minority view in both the professional astronomy and general literature; a majority (but not an overwhelming one) uses "universe". And I agree that we should strive to be consistent, certainly within any one article. I don't think it's an open and shut case either way; there is not a correct answer here. We would need a clear consensus to change this article (the default being the status quo). (Incidentally, in the professional astronomy literature, the Galaxy, the galaxy we live in, is always treated as a proper noun. I've always found it odd that Universe is less consistent.) —Alex (Ashill | talk | contribs) 04:29, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

That which is described by the word "universe" is indefinite, unlike any proper noun. The subject contains all space and time, rather than being an object within them. It is more of a philosophical concept (within which science is performed) than an object itself. Thus the universe is not a heavenly body and should not be capitalized per our MOS. UpdateNerd (talk) 06:03, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

There is a philosophical concept of the "universe", which I agree is a common noun. There is also a specific and unique entity which has a proper name, the Universe. That's my view. As I said above, my view is shared by a significant minority of sources but is not universal; as a teacher, I would not mark either usage incorrect. I'm not convinced that there's consensus to change the style here. —Alex (Ashill | talk | contribs) 06:37, 1 April 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)

I am reading a book in my local library right now, the title is "Universe - The Definitive Visual Guide". It is an excellent book written by Martin Rees and throughout the book the author uses the capitalised Universe. 120.16.45.98 (talk) 04:03, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

I just read a book from my local library (by Avi Loeb) where universe is not capitalised. But far more importantly I've actually read all the MoS discussions that are accessible via the link that was supplied earlier. Have you? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:18, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Hey now, don't WP:bite --Chetvorno^TALK 19:53, 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)

No, please read both of my comments. :) UpdateNerd (talk) 20:30, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Ok, got it, thanks --Chetvorno^TALK 03:48, 2 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)

A weak argument IMO. Authors can choose to capitalize non-proper-nouns for stylistic reasons. E.g. a philosopher could write, "All that exists is known as Everything." Similarly, government documents often capitalize hierarchical ranks to lend them a sense of authority. Such 'personification' of an abstract concept—however infinite in nature or otherwise supreme—is out of character for the Wikipedia voice. UpdateNerd (talk) 08:35, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

@UpdateNerd: The distinction is not whether "universe" is an abstract concept; there are abstract concepts which are capitalized; e.g. God. There are exceptions, but the general distinction between proper nouns (which are capitalized) and common nouns (which are not) is that a proper noun names a unique entity (e.g. Albert Einstein), while a common noun names a member of a class (e.g. dolphin). You just argued above that there was only one universe, which would make it unique, one of a kind. Anyway, it seems to me you can make an equally valid case that the universe is not an abstract concept, it is perfectly concrete - it consists of planets, stars, galaxies, etc. The fact that we don't know its extent or total contents, or whether it consists of multiple branes, disconnected spacetimes, etc. does not make it any less real.--Chetvorno^TALK 20:10, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Also, I don't see how your argument above that some authors capitalize common nouns justifies Wikipedia un-capitalizing a proper noun.--Chetvorno^TALK 20:10, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

God is a personification, as are the names of individual living beings. Unique places or works of art are intentional human creations which we agree are proper nouns. But the universe isn't an "entity" nor a place or thing. It's a synonym for the cosmos, everything, existence, nature, etc. UpdateNerd (talk) 11:17, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

The universe isn't a place? It's the only place, to be technical. And not a thing? To quote the bard: "You know, the thing". Randy Kryn (talk) 02:43, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

It's not a place any more than it's a time. It is that which contains both of those principles. UpdateNerd (talk) 05:22, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Correct, but that very definition makes it unique, thus an appropriate proper name. I don't capitalize universe and find upper-casing it awkward, but that may be just a personal societally-induced habitual bias (which many people probably feel when coming upon upper-cased 'Sun' and 'Moon'). Randy Kryn (talk) 12:43, 5 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)

It isn't clear from whose point of view an infinite concept, which is basically a synonym for 'everything', should be a proper noun. Various religions have personified the Omnipresent into a deity; that is literally the opposite of what a NPOV encyclopedia should do.

MOS:CELESTIALBODIES should include a reminder that, by definition, the universe isn't a body within space and shouldn't be capitalized on that principle. A Brian Greene quote could also clarify that, in multiverse theory, the universe contains all conceptual 'branes' and not the other way around. UpdateNerd (talk) 21:26, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

This isn't a religious question but purely a scientific one. If something exists it is within the realm of the word 'universe', a physical descriptor defining "all that is". The only thing religious about it is that buildings, books, and artifacts of particular religions exist on Earth and are included within the universe. Randy Kryn (talk) 21:44, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

@UpdateNerd: Strong, strong disagree that there is consensus to impose this site-wide in the MOS. —Alex (Ashill | talk | contribs) 00:18, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

@Ashill: Just to be clear, I was only stating an argument; I never said that consensus existed. UpdateNerd (talk) 00:27, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Correct, but capitalizing words without a clear and thoroughly obvious grammatical reason for doing so makes them appear like personifications (e.g. the infinite All, the goddess of Spring, etc.). As I said in one of my first comments, it's not incorrect for authors to capitalize words to lend them a subjective sense of agency or authority, but wiki-voice has no POV. And as I argued at length just above, the universe isn't a place within space (or a 'multiverse'); it's a more nuanced, not-fully understood principle. It would be POV to make another assumption without evidence. UpdateNerd (talk) 00:24, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Have seen this as just a discussion and not a name-change section. To capitalize this would need a full discussion at the MOS page, where I'd figure it would stay lower-cased but worth it to read the points-of-view. Randy Kryn (talk) 01:57, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes, the tone of this discussion has primarily been a preliminary one, with the potential standardization of the MOS of course needing to be discussed there. Standardization itself seems to have fairly unanimous consent, with any apparent disagreement being focused on the favoring of one capitalization over the other. For the sake of making a strong case on the MOS talk page, I suggest that we cite this article in favor of switching all instances to lower-case. Otherwise, if a consensus here can't be reached, we have little basis for proposing a change to the MOS. I've linked this discussion at the MOS talk page to get more input here. UpdateNerd (talk) 20:34, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm unclear why this article suggests consensus in favour of lower-case. In this discussion, I see only one editor who thinks lower-case is preferable, though it is what the article uses presently. I also don't necessarily think Wikipedia-wide standardization is terribly important; I support standardization within any given article. —Alex (Ashill | talk | contribs) 20:46, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

There is no consensus. This article used capitalised Universe for a long time, someone must have changed it without consensus recently. Here are some old revisions of this article:

2013: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Universe&oldid=531108342

2015: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Universe&oldid=677019618

2018: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Universe&oldid=825142724

2019: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Universe&oldid=898117734

2020: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Universe&oldid=942472119

Vic Park (talk) 05:48, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Because that's what the article currently employs. I'm not familiar with the whole history of discussions on this talk page, but if there was consensus to capitalize it, that would presumably have been implemented. UpdateNerd (talk) 21:47, 7 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)

You make a good argument for upper-casing, because of a common misunderstanding. Universe is the only jack. Randy Kryn (talk) 01:23, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Who names their jacks? UpdateNerd (talk) 06:53, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Who names their universe? Dicklyon (talk) 15:30, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

• NASA has a well-articulated style guide, which says, among other capitalization provisions:
  • Capitalize the names of planets (e.g., “Earth,” “Mars,” “Jupiter”). Capitalize “Moon” when referring to Earth’s Moon; otherwise, lowercase “moon” (e.g., “The Moon orbits Earth,” “Jupiter’s moons”). Capitalize “Sun” when referring to our Sun but not to other suns. Do not capitalize “solar system” and “universe.” Another note on usage: “Earth,” when used as the name of the planet, is not preceded by “the”; you would not say “the Neptune” or “the Venus.” When “earth” is lowercased, it refers to soil or the ground, not the planet as a whole. Do use “the” in front of “Sun” and “Moon” as applicable. See the list below for capitalization of words containing “sun” and “moon.”
  • In capitalizing titles, follow Chicago, with these exceptions: 1) capitalize prepositions of five or more letters (e.g., “Within,” “Before”) and 2) capitalize “to” when it is part of the infinitive form of a verb (e.g., “To Run”), because in that case it is not acting as a preposition.
  • Apart from NASA-specific terms, follow Chicago’s “down” style for words describing (but not directly naming) entities, such as “administration” (meaning presidential), “federal government,” “state,” “nation,” and so on. Do capitalize “Agency” and “Administration” when they are short for NASA, because that is NASA style.

In particular, they make it clear that some of these are just "because that is NASA style", though they would be odd for others (e.g. us) to adopt. They see no contradiction between astronomical bodies with proper names, and the universe not. Dicklyon (talk) 15:51, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

• Support—I've just been reading an article in this month's edition of Scientific American, in which "universe" is not capped. Tony (talk) 01:55, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
• Check with IAU and other bodies, as well as Scientific Style and Format. For technical matters like this, it best to do what the style guides come closest to agreeing on in the aggregate. Just singling out NASA alone is both Americanism and "governmentese", which WP is not written in. It may be that they all agree on all of this, or it may come down to a conflict, in which case we should lower-case the items they don't agree on, all things being equal. But even with the information so far, all things are not equal. NASA has little cause to write much about other solar systems, so "the solar system" seems natural to NASA. In a broader astronomical context, "the Solar System" or "the Solar system" is the system of Sol ("Solar" in this case a proper adjective), our sun, while "a solar system" is any orbital system around any star (or binary/trinary set thereof). The difference is important. That can't really be said for writing "the Universe" to distinguish from "a universe in a multiverse", since the existence a multiverse is theoretical at best and might be disproven next week for all we know.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:05, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

• I don't know what are your guys arguing about (I didn't read everything in the above discussion, it is too lengthy). To me, the word universe is well defined. I remember the definition is something like this:

"When describing the observable universe, use the lower case universe. When describing the total universe, which includes a large portion of something we don't know, use the upper case Universe."

Since most of the time we are referring to the "observable universe", the lower case universe is used more frequently.

End of the discussion. 2001:8003:9008:1301:1086:31F:A6C:F8E2 (talk) 23:29, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

You didn't give any source or reference for your definition except your vague memory. Wikipedia editors are not allowed to base content (including capitalization) on their own opinion, so sources are needed. So I don't think it is the end of discussion. --Chetvorno^TALK 23:10, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

A lot of astronomers use capitalised Universe though. Here is one example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8sUfiP9AUSo Vic Park (talk) 05:48, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Request for reversion

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/w/index.php?title=Universe&oldid=531108342

2015: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Universe&oldid=677019618

2018: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Universe&oldid=825142724

2019: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Universe&oldid=898117734

2020: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?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)

After searching through the old revisions, I finally found the editor who unilaterally changed Universe to universe without discussion and community consensus. This editor has also been banned permanently for abusively using multiple accounts.

Revision: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Universe&type=revision&diff=948781829&oldid=947942966

User page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alex_Devens

I request Wikipedia admin to revert his controversial edit. Vic Park (talk) 07:32, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Irony

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)

U

I 76.95.209.17 (talk) 02:47, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

What?--The Space Enthusiast (talk) 03:32, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Size of the entire universe - misleading, and argument is wrong.

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 appears to be WP:OR and contains no reliable references required by Wikipedia. David J Johnson (talk) 21:20, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 September 2022

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)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 November 2023 (3)

the ∑ is not 1×100 the ∑ is ≈ 5÷pi×12∑45−1×6÷∞÷∝

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. – dudhhr ^talk _contribs (he/they) 14:49, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Expanding the article?

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)

That would make the article far to long to navigate comfortably as there are nearly 6 million english wikipedia pages. Furthermore, although everything is technically a part of the universe; this article is about the universe in general and not its contents. (i.e all the other Wikipedia articles) Watch Atlas791 (talk) 22:35, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Concerns about the article's GA status

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)

Update the audio recording

The audio recording is about a decade out of date and should be replaced. RPI2026F1 (talk) 04:04, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Is it all there is?

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)

Wikipedia requires reliable sources for all content (WP:V). There is no scientific evidence for virtually any of that.

--Chetvorno^TALK 16:37, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 June 2023

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)

 Already done Cannolis (talk) 04:20, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Age of the Universe

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)

https://twitter.com/latestinspace/status/1689701924793102336?s=46&t=-pI0_feCiaWMCqqmDQPpQQ

if this is confirmed, that’s about right. Martin Maters (talk) 15:25, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Sources - [8] - [9]

-- LAZA74 (talk) 06:06, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

The universe is often defined as "the totality of existence"

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)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 December 2023

The word existence has a typo, please fix it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Poketgh (talk • contribs) 12:57, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

 Done. Good spot, I have found the location where the spelling error was and fixed it. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 16:02, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

@Iggy the Swan 216.208.65.105 (talk) 20:56, 9 February 2024 (UTC)