Talk:Universe

GAR

Universe

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Kept per consensus. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 02:01, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

GA from 2015 that have multiple problems. I posted this comments 20 days ago, but it seems that nobody is willing to update that article and thus GAR is required.

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.

There is also a question on talk page about the audio version being outdated (13 June 2012 (!)) - maybe it should simply be removed? Artem.G (talk) 17:39, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

I think a public-outreach website from the Particle Physics and Astronomy Research Council is a decent source for a general statement like that, all things told. It would be nice to have a citation that isn't an archived copy of a web page, and we can swap it out, but I wouldn't stress over it. The Index to Creationist Claims is probably also OK for mainstream scientific responses to pseudoscientific nonsense, and thus for short summaries of mainstream positions on out-there speculation.

In "Ordinary matter", the stuff about four familiar phases plus BECs and such is standard, and a decent college textbook would be a reasonable source. I will try to dig up the Allday book which is cited in the "Hadrons" section; it might cover that whole paragraph already. XOR'easter (talk) 13:41, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

It occurs to me that we recently put Planet and Solar system through successful FA reviews, and the historical material in those could also be applicable here. It took a long time for the Universe to be recognized as a much bigger thing than the solar system, after all. XOR'easter (talk) 15:32, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

I removed the last remaining cn from the Chronology section after adding links to the flatness and horizon problems, which were being alluded to, but unclearly. These are quite complicated ideas and so best not to attempt to summarise in a sentence or two. PaddyLeahy (talk) 00:28, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Well, it's in better shape now. I'll leave it for someone else to decide whether it is "Good". XOR'easter (talk) 19:46, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

• Keep looks good, and I trust XOR's knowledge more than my own ability to assess. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:14, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

• Keep, thanks to XOR article looks better now! Artem.G (talk) 10:30, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The “beginning” of the known universe

You mentioned in the 3rd paragraph, last sentence that “Discoveries in the early 20th century have suggested that the universe had a beginning and has been expanding since then.”. It would be more precise to say “that the universe we live in” or “the known universe”, as there is no proof of a beginning (or end). 91.74.1.182 (talk) 17:40, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

1. "Suggested" is a key word.
2. I would say it is not meaningfully more precise. the Universe is all we have access to, so there's no meaning to putting any qualifiers on it, really, because by definition there is nothing else to conjecture about or consider. If we could consider it, it would be part of the Universe. It is exactly as meaningful to feel the need to specify "the Blue Universe", because there's nothing external to compare its Blueness to.

Remsense诉 17:52, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Dark Energy is Flawed or Nonexistent?

Seems recent studies suggest that Dark Energy thinking is seriously "Flawed" - or that Dark Energy doesn't even exist at all - if interested, my related pubished NYT comments may be relevant - in any case - Worth adding to the main "Universe" article - or Not? - Comments Welcome - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 14:45, 5 April 2024 (UTC) Drbogdan (talk) 14:45, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

The NY times is definitely not a credible source for discounting the best understanding of physics we have. WP:ECREE standards absolutely apply (as you pointed out) and we don't need to include every "hint" from someone who disbelieves Dark Energy regardless of their background until it receives a degree of wide acceptance. This is especially problematic considering how controversial Dark Energy/Dark Matter are with non-experts for some reason, despite this not at all being the mainstream stance within physics. I've definitely noticed a few of your edits trend this way, so while I don't really understand the stance I do want to commend you on sticking to WP:ECREE here :) Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 19:47, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

@Warrenmck: (and others) - Thank You for your comments - they're appreciated - you referred to my stance - my stance these days is to help close the gap between non-expert and expert thinking re these issues with worthy responsible presentations acceptible to all if possible - hopefully, this may make such science topics and issues more accessible and useful to the average reader - after all => "Readability of Wikipedia Articles" (BEST? => Score of 60/"9th grade/14yo" level) - in any case - hope this helps in some way - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 21:51, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this up, Drbogdan. I think this is an important area we need to keep our eye on, but I agree with Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ that the scientific evidence has not reached a level to include in this article. The only evidence presented are two WP:primary sources, a preliminary year-1 report of the 5 year DESI galaxy survey that claims there are indications that dark energy varies with time, and a single research paper. WP requires secondary sources (WP:PSTS), but the nonscientific press like the NYT does not qualify because they preferentially report controversial findings and do not have the same standards of notability as the scientific community. --Chetvorno^TALK 15:18, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

NOTE: A related discussion has been centralized on "physics Wikiproject", and can be found at the following link => "Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics/Archive April 2024#Dark Energy is Flawed or Nonexistent?" - iac - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 22:22, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

References

The universe comprises all of nature, not all of existence (or reality).

The beginning of the second sentence in the lead is wrong. The terms "universe" and "existence" are not mere synonyms; among other things, that is why they have two different articles, instead of one simply redirecting to the other. Claiming nothing exists outside the universe is POV pushing. Philosophy is divided on ontology. Physics by definition does not address it.

To take the term "universe" to mean "all that exists" is an informal notion, not a scholarly one. It is contradicted by such diverse propositions as Platonism and the multiverse. 2001:9E8:8C0:E200:888B:6AA7:C062:799F (talk) 06:08, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Disputed

This is a large article with lots of scientific information. A lot of work has gone into it over the years. Even I don’t think we should have to delete it because the title, Universe, is scientifically unwarranted and unjustifiable.

The term “universe” is so wide-spread in common usage that it is effectively unquestionable. Among scientific lay-men and expert alike. Amongst militant atheist and god-fearing mega-church pastor the same. If all people did was laugh when I told them that I, as a confirmed idealist, do not believe in the universe, I would comfortably share my point of view at will. But, despite the fact that I hold “the nuts” (poker term), sharing my perspective has never once gone well. People are indoctrinated so deeply into this non-scientific fallacy that they cannot hear a challenge. On this topic, certainly, Wikipedia is and has been a major source of dis/misinformation.

The fact is, the whole article over, and including all the previous versions, there isn’t a single reliable source (WP:RS) establishing the propriety of the term universe itself. I could (perhaps) write an essay investigating the reasons why this fallacious term has become so popular, but the fact remains that, if the Wikipedia community here were to apply as vigorously as they are known to oft do the community standards toward the title/article/term “universe,” the community would not tolerate its usage. Here, or anywhere on the site? The term is an unwarranted and unjustifiable abstraction, doomed to a fate worse than that of Newtonian Mechanics (which remains pretty darn useful though ultimately inadequate and wrong). There is no universe qua Universe. I could tell you that there are persons harmonizing experientially because, as self-existent ideas (instances of the self-existent idea), we have no capacity to do otherwise, but that would be beyond the scope of this article and dispute? At length, we need better terminology.

Yesterday I made a revision to the page that assuaged my (continually being triggered by (my forced silence before) the uncritically, inductively, un-reasoned term “universe”) “wrath,” and all it really took was some careful caveats to the introduction/“definition” of the offending term. There is and cannot be any physical copula encompassing all of existence. “The physical universe,” if taken literally, is an absolute absurdity. Thank God Max Plank pointed it out early!:

“The energy and entropy of the world have no meaning, because such quantities admit of no accurate definition.”

https://archive.org/stream/treatiseonthermo00planrich#page/100/mode/2up

Here is a link to my revision:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Universe&oldid=1225820689

Here is a link to the comparison of the changes made:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Universe&diff=next&oldid=1225820689

I suggest we move the article forward from that basis upon conclusion of this “discussion.” If no one can justify with rigorous science the term “universe” itself, the article cannot in rights be left standing as it was? The term “universe” is too prevalent for complete deletion; even if we settled on a new, appropriate term, and migrated all the information there, a page for “the universe” should ever remain standing as a piacular memorial.

God Bless You and yours,

may we thingk (sic) better of ourselves going forward — Preceding unsigned comment added by DisciplinedIdea (talk • contribs)

Please read WP:SOAPBOX, you’re not going to get Wikipedia to remove the term “universe” from the article on the universe, and your edit summaries are wildly inappropriate. I’ve reverted more of your edits, Wikipedia is not the correct avenue for these kind of advocacy, and edits like this are mostly disruptive. You’re welcome to edit the article but just slapping a disputed template on top of the article because you personally dispute the idea of the universe isn’t a great place to start. If you have objections with the provided sources please be more specific so we can all work together to improve it. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 22:48, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Reply:

>Please read WP:SOAPBOX

great, the whole page is a soapbox for an absurd term. “No cap.”

>you’re not going to get Wikipedia to remove the term “universe” from the article on the universe,

you get to soapbox idealists forever, and they don’t even get a peep (disputed-tag): got it (as expected)

>and your edit summaries are wildly inappropriate.

your lies (on my talk page) and characterizations are wildly inappropriate. Attack the substance, padna.

“The energy and entropy of the world have no meaning, because such quantities admit of no accurate definition.”-Max Plank

https://archive.org/stream/treatiseonthermo00planrich#page/100/mode/2up

>I’ve reverted more of your edits,

you should be the one at risk for that. The disputed tag is not to be removed until the dispute is resolved. I shouldn’t have to fight like this. Will I be allowed to? I’m not permitted to make you feel some type of way about a mere “disputed” tag, but you can go to all these lengths to bite me and make me feel the type of way idealists are ALWAYS made to feel among physicalists. It’s a travesty. Poor, poor kids. You should take this as your SECOND warning.

>Wikipedia is not the correct avenue for these kind of advocacy,

let’s delete the article until science comes to a complete Conclusion?

>and edits like this are mostly disruptive.

I bring competence and resources to share: address the substance.

>You’re welcome to edit the article

hardly. I have to be at the top of my game, near perfect. How many less qualified people with legit reservations have been banned for trying?

>but just slapping a disputed template on top of the article

don’t bite the newb and address the substance. I didn’t think so.

>because you personally dispute the idea

Max Plank was a chump?

>of the universe

I see you letters but I know you ain’t got an idea that can defend it.

>isn’t a great place to start.

Wikipedia encourages newcomers to make bold edits. Policy. don’t bite the newb and address the substance.

I didn’t think so.

>If you have objections with the provided sources

put your source on the term universe there in line one, buddy.

>please be more specific

please consider the work I provided before biting

>so we can all work together to improve it.

I’ve contributed what the first reverter (of two) called “certainly valid” and “good faith,” but needing discussion.

You’ve contributed nothing but darkness to hide what you call my “trash.”

address the substance or don’t lay your filthy hands on me (or anyone like me) again

Don’t make me warn you a third time (I think I remember something about that being the LIMIT).

DisciplinedIdea (talk) 00:29, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

You don't have the slightest idea of what Wikipedia is about, so I suggest to take your business elsewhere. tgeorgescu (talk) 01:37, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Agree with Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ and the entire field of astronomy. The term 'universe' is already thoroughly sourced; the Definition section has 10 citations. DisciplinedIdea, Wikipedia is not a WP:SOAPBOX for your inadequately sourced WP:FRINGE views. Wikipedia editors are required to be civil to each other (WP:5P4), that means WP:NO PERSONAL ATTACKS such as "...don’t lay your filthy hands on me (or anyone like me) again". WP:DISRUPTIVE EDITING like the above can get you blocked. --Chetvorno^TALK 01:49, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

More to the point, what DisciplinedIdea peddles is New Age mysticism, not science. tgeorgescu (talk) 09:15, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

@DisciplinedIdea was just indeffed, so back to business as usual. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 09:36, 28 May 2024 (UTC)