Definition of Universe requires clarification, to enable discussion

[Catastrophe]

I believe there is considerable difference still possible in what we understand by Universe, and this goes beyond what we understand by observable universes. We need to look at the "we".

I do believe that "all there is" itself requires clarification. What do we mean by this? Exclude "all we can imagine there is"

The definition offered by John Gribbin is worthy of acceptance, in my opinion.

"John Gribbin graduated with his bachelor's degree in physics from the University of Sussex in 1966. Gribbin then earned his Master of Science (MSc) degree in astronomy in 1967, also from the University of Sussex, and he earned his PhD in astrophysics from the University of Cambridge (1971)."
"An astrophysicist, and a visiting fellow in astronomy at the University of Sussex."

“The Universe is everything that we can see, and interact with, and detect with our instruments.”

I suggest that this is firmly rooted in science,

It has been suggested, in effect, that this is assumed to be the same as "all there is", but it is not.
Hopefully, all scientists will agree with Gribbin's definition, and (maybe grudgingly) that "all there is" is not sufficiently specific..
After all, it must be conceded that, in terms of what we can observe and measure, the concept of the Universe itself, together with its very origin, are firmly metaphysical rather than observable - and is science not based on observation? .

Please note that I am not attacking BBT, just pointing out what is, at present, beyond the understanding of science (e.g., t = 0).
(For those who do not know me, I have an Hons. B.Sc., and have edited and partly written a scientific book for Marcel Dekker, as well as having numerous granted U.S. and other patents. I have the greatest respect for genuine science.)

I therefore propose acceptance of: (perhaps consider "or" or "and/or" in place of "and"?)

“The Universe is everything that we can see, and interact with, and detect with our instruments.”

Cat

 

[COLGeek]

Does "metaphysical" in this sense simply mean unknown or undetected? Possibly even "assumed"?

 

[Greenlight]

according to your definition, Does Dark energy and Dark matter reside in the universe?
as they are not directly observed or measured, only their influence is indirectly.

or do they fall into the exclusion of what we imagine there is?

 

[Classical Motion]

Wow!!! I totally disagree. That definition is way to limiting. Way too restrictive.

The universe is a volume. And it should be defined as such. It’s not whats detectable.

It’s all and everything in that volume, detectable or not. And as time goes on and we improve the range of that volume, that universe increases.

The universe will grow with tech. And the entities in that volume will grow with tech.

I believe there is more undetectable matter, than detectable matter. And I refer to regular matter, not some inventive matter.

I’ll bet the undetectable rarefied matter is much, much more than detected matter.

This undetected matter is NOT gravitational matter.

And space is NOT an entity. It’s the lack of such. An emptiness. A void.

And when you figure out what light is, there is going to be a lot of red faces.

Light is not an EM wave. EM waves are angular. They do not propagate. An angular wave has to be cut, and propagated separately for propagation. Singular one half “wave” chunks. One radius pi chunk. 180 degree chunks. ½ period chunks. Half turn. One half twist chunks.

EM radiation is a quantum dynamic. Discreet periods of EM field.

Duty cycle shift, not Doppler wave shift. Light is chunky. A chunky shift.

 

[contrarian]

according to your definition, Does Dark energy and Dark matter reside in the universe?
as they are not directly observed or measured, only their influence is indirectly.

or do they fall into the exclusion of what we imagine there is?

Quarks are only "observed" by indirect evidence, so it seems that DM and DE are part of the observable universe, assuming all the data about their existence is correct.

Which brings the question - how hard core is the data for DM and DE? Are there any reasonable alternatives to explain the "gravitational impact of DM"? And now we see that the Hubble tension is stirring things up. Again, not sure what to make of it all........which is probably not an uncommon consideration.

 

[Classical Motion]

Paradox too it seems is part of this universe.

For some the question isn't when we will find life, it's why we haven't.

For some a paradox is a flag, that something is off in our comprehension. Our philosophy.

And for some a paradox is an opportunity for invention. New math and new physics.

The physics of paradox. Paradox philosophy. Man loves to create.

When I run in to one, it tells me that I am stupid. Not ignorant.

Ignorance is accepting the paradox.

The only true physics is paradox free physics. The purpose of physics is to eliminate all paradox.

But no one would dare reference this. It’s a primitive thought. A simple thought.

I believe simplicity is a much higher standard than spacetime. Simplicity, the first pillar of this cosmos.

Just the compilations of an old dried up hayseed. It’s only meant to tickle, not anger or disturb.

 

[Atlan0001]

Does "metaphysical" in this sense simply mean unknown or undetected? Possibly even "assumed"?

"Communication across the revolutionary divide is inevitably partial." -- Physicist Thomas S. Kuhn.
-----------------------------

"From a drop of water, a logician could infer the possibility of an Atlantic or a Niagara without having seen or heard of one or the other...." -- 'Sherlock Holmes: A Study in Scarlet', by Arthur Canon Doyle.

 

[Catastrophe]

Does "metaphysical" in this sense simply mean unknown or undetected? Possibly even "assumed"?

COLGeek,

Derived from the Greek meta ta physika ("after the things of nature"); referring to an idea, doctrine, or posited 'reality' outside of human sense perception. In modern philosophical terminology, metaphysics refers to the studies of what cannot be reached through objective studies of material reality. [Google]

So, metaphysical is quite "respectable".

It covers several eventualities mentioned in this thread.

In a nutshell, I would suggest "idea (et cetera) outside the province of science, but not necessarily without some merit. But not provable to scientific standard.

Metaphysics is a study of reality and existence, named from a set of books written by Aristotle asking what is being, what are first causes, and what is change. It studies what we are and what our purpose is, seeking knowledge about everything from the nature of the entire universe to that of the human mind.

Cat

 

[Catastrophe]

Greenlight,

Does [sic] dark energy and dark matter reside in the universe?

See previous #8. They exist "by definition" - words invented to "solve" problems.

They are named, perhaps somewhat cyclically, in attempted explanations.
Perfect candidates. in Scotland, "not proven", but not disproven.

For example, see Google:

Dark matter is a hypothetical type of matter that is believed to make up a large portion of the universe, but is invisible and doesn't interact with light or other electromagnetic radiation.

My emphasis. "Detected" by gravitational effect. Dark energy, similarly hypothetical.


Cat

N.B. What does Not proven mean? A Scottish verdict in criminal prosecutions which is equivalent to an acquittal. The available verdicts in Scottish trials are guilty, not guilty and not proven. A not proven verdict means that the charge against an accused person has not been proved.

 

[Catastrophe]

Another example might be distant civilisations. There is no scientific evidence, but common sense requires that they must exist (in great numbers) bearing in mind the trillions of galaxies each with billions/trillions stars.

Below science, but above fiction!

Cat

 

[Gibsense]

Does defining the "Universe" truly matter?

When we refer to "everything," is that not definitive enough, or do we require more criteria, narrowing it down to a subset of "everything"? Perhaps to "everything real"?

However, we don't know what is real until we discover and verify it to our satisfaction. So, we aim to exclude speculative ideas from our "everything real" universe, focusing only on what we believe to be real.

Is this an attempt to limit discussions about the universe to what is definite? If so, does that mean each person can only discuss their own experiences, while the rest remains in the realm of imagination?

 

[COLGeek]

COLGeek,



So, metaphysical is quite "respectable".

It covers several eventualities mentioned in this thread.

In a nutshell, I would suggest "idea (et cetera) outside the province of science, but not necessarily without some merit. But not provable to scientific standard.



Cat

I wasn't criticizing the term, was really just adding context to its intent.

I tend to simplify things to be able to explain to others. In this sense, "everything" refers to all we know, assume, and don't know. All is in all. Is that not what was suggested in its most basic form?

 

[Helio]

N.B. What does Not proven mean? A Scottish verdict in criminal prosecutions which is equivalent to an acquittal. The available verdicts in Scottish trials are guilty, not guilty and not proven. A not proven verdict means that the charge against an accused person has not been proved.

This serves nicely, IMO, as a comparison to better define science. Judicial verdicts are separate from science in that they draw conclusions on a belief structure, though they rely heavily on objective evidence (science). What does it say about judicial "proofs" if further evidence, perhaps years later, shows the convicted person was now found innocent? A guilty verdict is found when demonstrations show "beyond a reasonable doubt" that someone is guilty. "Doubt" is a belief.

Serving as a juror, I recall another juror who refused to believe a burglar was guilty. Several hours expired of going over the claims made against the charged person. Especially the part where the cop caught him coming out of the window of the house burglarized. Finally we were unanimous that he was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

But, surprise, he had two other prior felonies. Thus, we had to deliberate again on the sentence. The hold-out juror was furious and wanted to give him the max. sentence possible. The reason was because our burglar had such an innocent-looking face that he couldn't be guilty, and she felt highly deceived by him. This is the problem with subjective opinions that are found even in science at times.

The observable Universe is the realm of science. "Observable" includes all that could be observed objectively someday, even in principle. Other observers, since it is objective, can also conduct their own verification of any claims. Such claims may be opinonated, but if they are testable, then they're within science. Science also allows indirect evidence to be used, which is the case for all black holes and for dark matter, though direct evidence may come some day.

Metaphysics is something, IMO, where science simply says, "we can't go there". As we've discussed before, the creation instant (t=0) for the universe is outside the purview of science, hence other approaches (subjective ones) have great freedom to make claims. People now can just believe what they will, as in a jury room.

 

[Catastrophe]

As a "light" addition, here is an extract from a book which most of you may have read, as it is one of the ever "best sellers". You might lie to guess, if you don't recognise it.
Perhaps just identify V and/or L.

"Yes, the singularity," V said. "The very moment of creation. Time zero" She looked at L. "Even today, science cannot grasp the initial moment of creation. Our equations explain the early universe quite effectively, but as we move back in time, approaching time zero, suddenly our mathematics disintegrates, and everything becomes meaningless."

I cannot continue, but it is on page 63 of my edition, which I am currently re-reading.

Cat

 

[Catastrophe]

Helio,

"Observable" includes all that could be observed objectively someday, even in principle. Other observers, since it is objective, can also conduct their own verification of any claims. Such claims may be opinonated, but if they are testable, then they're within science.

I see no reason to alter John Gribbin's definition, except to change "and" to "and/or".

The Universe is everything that we can see, and interact with, and detect with our instruments.”

Are you not "giving a dog a bad name and hanging it"? Gribbin does not say "observe" at all.

If claims are opinionated and testable, should they not be tested, before inclusion in science? I appreciate that you probably intended this. But surely, after testing positive, they would no longer be opinionated? Their history (opinionated) would be irrelevant.

Cat

 

[Helio]

As a "light" addition, here is an extract from a book which most of you may have read, as it is one of the ever "best sellers". 'Yes, the singularity," V said. "The very moment of creation. Time zero" She looked at L. "Even today, science cannot grasp the initial moment of creation. Our equations explain the early universe quite effectively, but as we move back in time, approaching time zero, suddenly our mathematics disintegrates, and everything becomes meaningless."

That's pretty accurate, IMO. Those equations produce infinity results when get very near t=0. That is why some describe their equations as "carts where the wheels go flying off." But that could change if all the forces can be united in an accurate model (GUT), or even the TOE (Theory of Everything) model. I doubt even then anything will work for t=0.

 

[Helio]

If claims are opinionated and testable, should they not be tested, before inclusion in science?

Scrutiny is key to science, so yes, the more testing the better the chances of tweaking the model, or perhaps, making a new discovery.

I appreciate that you probably intended this. But surely, after testing positive, they would no longer be opinionated?

Yes, this raises an important point I tried to make with my old Green Rules. The greater of both qualitative and quantitative testing that affirms a model, the better the model. Newton's ideas became laws for those two reasons.

But, Einstein had a different opinion. So we see that even laws must not be considered something on the level of "proofs". This is why one cannot prove a theory, by definition. Either a scientific theory is strong, weak, or falsified. Once it's falsified, however, it is not uncommon to state that a hypothesis or theory was "proved" false. I think that's fine.

Once again, Galileo's time can help show how even falsification doesn't eliminate associated assumptions (opinions). Galileo demonstrated that the Ptolemy model is false due to his, and others, observations of the orbit of Venus.

But it didn't prove the Copernicus' model where the Sun is the center. He got into trouble because he was sure the Cop model was correct, especially when he used tides as his key physics argument. The Tychonic model (geocentric) was quickly adopted instead. This model, btw, if modified to allow elliptical orbits, etc., has yet to be falsified, as far as I know. But it becomes a model full of fictious forces, so that the opinion of scientists is that it must reside in Sillyville.

Their history (opinionated) would be irrelevant.

Yeah, usually. But sometimes it's handy to know the background in case we have to circle back for a better model to explain the anomalies.

As for Gribbin, IMO, there's nothing wrong with this for general readership:
"The Universe is everything that we can see, and interact with, and detect with our instruments.”

But we know what happens when there's any ambiguity; like when weeds sprout in a wet garden. Objectivity and subjectivity both require proper interactive definitions. Subjectivity is needed for drawing conclusions from objective evidence, but the basis to science is objectivity, not subjectivity. This, IMO, is no small issue.

 

[contrarian]

Which brings the question - how hard core is the data for DM and DE? Are there any reasonable alternatives to explain the "gravitational impact of DM"? And now we see that the Hubble tension is stirring things up. Again, not sure what to make of it all........which is probably not an uncommon consideration.

As suspected, there are "experts" with contrarian views on dark energy. There are likely a number who don't buy into it, but here at least is a reasonable take on the issue :

Dark energy 'doesn't exist' so can't be pushing 'lumpy' universe apart, physicists say

One of the biggest mysteries in science—dark energy—doesn't actually exist, according to researchers looking to solve the riddle of how the universe is expanding.

phys.org

Comments would be appreciated from those with enough understanding to make some sense out if all, assuming that is even remotely possible.......... Doubts on dark matter likely to follow.

Perhaps with our multi-messenger astronomy, we are seeing all that is in the "observable" universe and there isn't anything else to it!

 

[Catastrophe]

Helio,

The Universe is everything that we can see, and interact with, and detect with our instruments.”

Are you saying all three are necessary, as required by . . . . . . and . . . and . . . . . . ?

For example, we can see Andromeda and detect it with our instruments, but how do you interact with something 2.537 million light years away?

Cat