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There is also a question on talk page about the audio version being outdated (13 June 2012 (!))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 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)

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#Dark Energy is Flawed or Nonexistent?" - iac - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 22:22, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

References