Talk:Universe

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The audio recording is about a decade out of date and should be replaced.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)

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.

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)