Talk:Universe

	This Astronomy related article has been awarded BRONZE status for quality. It's getting there, but could be better with improvement. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.

Archives for this talk page:

<1>

, (new)

Poetry problem

I hate to be the one to point it out, but both the poems are about the end of the world, not the end of the universe... Rational Ed^evidence 14:47, 18 April 2008 (EDT)

I think in both cases the case could be made that "world" is a metaphor for "everything", or, the universe. human 21:51, 18 April 2008 (EDT)

Would it be okay here (RW)

to define the universe as "everything generated by the BIG BANG?" Carptrash 16:57, 3 December 2008 (EST)

What about any stuff that was around before the BB? ħuman 19:03, 3 December 2008 (EST)

There was no before the Big Bang. _and marmite 19:11, 3 December 2008 (EST)

How do you know? What if it was, at the simplest, preceded by a collapse of matter and energy, a Big Crunch? ħuman 20:37, 3 December 2008 (EST)

And I was sort of wondering what there might be around, far away no doubt, that was not created (loaded word) - so perhaps , originated from - the BIG BANG, That perhaps everything in our universe was from the BB. but aew there other such places? Other universes? Other BB's that created universes different from ours? i was wondering if there could be a universe in which the Laws of Gravity, for example, did not hold sway? Just wondering. Carptrash 20:27, 3 December 2008 (EST)

One way to envision the simplest version of that would be that our "known" universe is sort of finite, in that it is only "so big" across (30-odd billion light years and counting), so similar phenomena may exist past that "boundary" (by the way, I might be wrong about that finite thing - it could be that we can only see that far in any direction, but that the universe we live in also extends infinitely in all directions). Then there's the whole "brane" thing, where multiple "universes" can exist "side by side" so to speak. It's a shame that "universe" has come to have a smaller meaning than "everything there ever is or was whether we can see it or not", in that anything outside what you described as "everything generated by the BIG BANG" gets to be called "other universes" and the like. ħuman 20:37, 3 December 2008 (EST)

That said, Carpy's definition is probably semantically and in today's terms, scientifically correct. ħuman 20:39, 3 December 2008 (EST)

Current (?) theories indicate that teh Big Bang was an expansion, from zero, of space AND time - ie before it there was no time, I think ... or do I? ... Am I? ... is it? ... _and marmite 20:45, 3 December 2008 (EST)

Thanks. I've being running through (my version of ) the history of the Universe, being first it was just what we could see with our eyes (plus or minus whatever concept of "heaven and/or hell" (and related stuff from other religion/mythologies) might be, which was only things in the Milky Way galaxy (except the Andromada galaxy, but we can skip that for now) - then after the telescope the Universe got bigger, bigger and more complex telescopes led to a bigger more complex universe, etc. So, what is going to happen next that will turn the page to yet another expansion of the Universe, because (opinion) once we "discover" another universe, then it sort of gets absorbed into ours. Or not.

I've had another series of "amazing coincidences" and am thinking that the next big break through will help explain them. So the universe will expand not in light years but in layers or dimensions in more or less the same space we occupy now. Only different. Carptrash 20:51, 3 December 2008 (EST)

By definition, the universe is everything. So anything that is discovered/detected is part of the universe. _and marmite 21:07, 3 December 2008 (EST)

That's the approach I prefer, rather than talking of "other universes" I'd rather hear talk of "hithertofore unseen and unimagined stuff". ħuman 21:32, 3 December 2008 (EST)

So, if the Universe is everything, then there is nothing outside the universe? "By definition?" Correct? Carptrash 22:42, 3 December 2008 (EST)

We just haven't found it all yet, or maybe we have. Of course people talk of multiple universes but semantically I think they're incorrect. _and marmite 22:56, 3 December 2008 (EST)

Well , "semantically incorrect" only if the Universe is defined as "Everything" If it is defined as the fruit of the big bang, then there could be other stuff. Also, if the Universe is defined as "Everything in the 4 dimensions" then , again , there could be more. Carptrash 23:15, 3 December 2008 (EST)

I don't see why it would be "anything in the 4 dimensions" when modern physics is playing with far more dimensions than that. ħuman 00:33, 4 December 2008 (EST)

Well, we don't have the language to deal with this kind of thing. I think the only thing we can define the universe as is literally the observable universe. What's outside that is unobservable, but might still be a product of the Big Bang. We don't know (and theoretically can never know) what that is. There could be a "before" the BB, in the sense that there could be a "before" without there being a before... (see the very first sentence). So we're stuck in a loop of trying to define something that we don't have the language to define because our brains and language evolved to shout at monkeys in the other tree, not to deal with 12 dimensional physics! ArmondikoV^postate 07:13, 4 December 2008 (EST)

"evolved to shout at monkeys in the other tree" - I think I just saw that show! ħuman 16:47, 4 December 2008 (EST)

I just assumed that the line in the "h" {ħ} was because you are a closet ChrisTian? Carptrash 21:10, 4 December 2008 (EST)

Hehe, no, it's just to lull them into a state of spiritual inebriation. It was the only "weird" h available when I had some godawful "all weird characters" signature, and the only one I kept after three days of appalling all fellow editors. ħuman 21:29, 4 December 2008 (EST)

Occasionally intersecting multiverses

The universe splits briefly with all the alternatives, most of which then promptly reconverge (as there is effectively no difference between versions - it does not actually matter which sock you put on first etc). This is why eg some witness statements differ significantly - they are describing slightly different realities.

However sometimes slightly more divergent universes overlap briefly (the branes touch) - which accounts for ghosts, some genuine OOP objects (not being things traded, lost or otherwise explained) and similar loose ends. 109.150.40.244 (talk) 12:21, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

And in an alternative universe Lee Harvey Oswald was on the Grassy Knoll and there is much discussion of the Repository Man myth (being debunked on AU RW). Anna Livia (talk) 15:22, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Paradox

Scream!! (talk) 15:11, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

To Infinity - and beyond!

After some recent edits our multiverse section now rather breathlessly reads:

"It's plausible that there are an infinite amount of infinitely cyclic, infinitely large multiverses, all of which are apart of an infinite amount of infinitely cyclic, infinitely large higher-order verses, that each brought forth an infinite amount of infinitely cyclic, infinitely large universes, each with infinite big bangs that each form an infinite amount of infinitely cyclic universes; thus each of them have infinite cyclic variations and infinite dimensions. Each universe, their infinite cycles, and infinite dimensions, thus, all have their own infinite varieties of fundamental forces ..."

It's a bit like something out of the introduction to the Hitchhikers Guide.

I would correct it, but I'm not entirely convinced by this multiverse stuff (or its plausibility) so I don't really want to put my fingers in.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 14:10, 14 November 2022 (UTC)