Talk:Universe: Difference between revisions – Wikipedia

By /

 

Line 139: Line 139:

:[[User:Aseyhe|Aseyhe]] ([[User talk:Aseyhe|talk]]) 00:06, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

:[[User:Aseyhe|Aseyhe]] ([[User talk:Aseyhe|talk]]) 00:06, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

::Come to think of it, both (2) and (3) could fit into a [[large-scale structure]] article (and no need for a disambiguation — no one uses “large-scale structure” in any other noteworthy context). [[User:Aseyhe|Aseyhe]] ([[User talk:Aseyhe|talk]]) 00:29, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

::Come to think of it, both (2) and (3) could fit into a [[large-scale structure]] article (and no need for a disambiguation — no one uses “large-scale structure” in any other noteworthy context). [[User:Aseyhe|Aseyhe]] ([[User talk:Aseyhe|talk]]) 00:29, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

:::Excellent, thanks! [[User:Johnjbarton|Johnjbarton]] ([[User talk:Johnjbarton|talk]]) 00:52, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

Good article Universe has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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 intro has grown and needs a haircut. The history is also conflicts with later material.

The article itself has undue material. Particle physics does not belong beyond a summary. Multiverse is too long. Cosmological models is redundant with the age and expansion section; we don’t need Friedmann eqn in an article at this level. History has material unrelated to the article topic. Johnjbarton (talk) 00:01, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

according to recent studies the expansion of the Universe may be slowing, not accelerating. Mr.Lovecraft (talk) 16:34, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is the scientific paper behind the report in the Guardian.

  • Son, J., Lee, Y. W., Chung, C., Park, S., & Cho, H. (2025). Strong progenitor age bias in supernova cosmology–II. Alignment with DESI BAO and signs of a non-accelerating universe. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 544(1), 975-987.
Johnjbarton (talk) 17:34, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Change “to form.Giant clouds of” to “to form. Giant clouds of” as there is a missing space after the full stop. Adzlondon (talk) 22:07, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Done, thanks. win8x (talk) 22:09, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Kirsten Jørgensdatter reverted my changes, resulting in the article having links to unexpected targets.
In my version the link text and linked targets are aligned:

In the replacement we visit a timeline instead of a model, Kepler instead of heliocentrism and we lose the link to the specially named time period.

I ask that the revert be undone. Johnjbarton (talk) 21:19, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the engagement on this. As I said in my revert comment, the link to Kepler’s Laws is deliberate because that specific model of the Universe is equivalent to the Big Bang model (also mentioned in the article’s 2nd paragraph) in terms of historical significance to human understanding of our Universe. Kirsten Jørgensdatter (talk) 21:40, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As I understand it, the the lead section is an introduction to an article and a summary of its most important contents. In this article Kepler’s laws of planetary motion are not discussed. Thus including them in the intro is not appropriate. We could change the article, but I think the right place to make comparisons between the impact of Kepler and the Big Bang model would be Kepler’s laws of planetary motion and Big Bang or any of the numerous articles linked in the Universe#Historical conceptions. As I read that section it gives a summary of concepts of the universe. The geocentric/heliocentric/Milky Way/Cosmology sequence illustrates that our concept of the universe has expanded over time. It’s not a good place to make comparisons of impact.
I also don’t think Kepler’s laws of planetary motion are directly responsible for heliocentrism as implied by the link. Heliocentrism is traditionally associated with Copernicus. Kepler bolstered the case for heliocentrism by summarizing Tycho Brahe‘s astronomical data into a few empirical rules. Newton then gave mathematical analysis that produced those laws from a model of gravity. I think most histories would place the breakthrough at Newton rather than at Kepler, but some, including Richard Feynman point to Brahe: no data, no Kepler’s laws.
All of this fun stuff aside, the link should not, according to WP:EASTEREGG, point to content other than that in the link text. Johnjbarton (talk) 01:02, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There are two different points you are raising, one substantive and one about (best) Wikipedia practice. Let’s take the latter (“Easter Egg”) point first. As I understand it, a “piped link” (an internal link that displays text different from the title of the page to which the text links) is permissible when “the wording of the exact link title does not fit in context.” Here is an example:
Cetaceans have been extensively hunted for their meat…
As I understand Wikipedia practice
During the European Scientific Revolution, astronomical observations led to a heliocentric model..
is a similar permissible “piped link” of this kind. Kirsten Jørgensdatter (talk) 14:58, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Given that Kepler’s laws are not mentioned anywhere else in the article (correct me if I’m wrong), I don’t think it makes sense to mention them in the lead, let alone to have a hidden link to them. Aseyhe (talk) 15:22, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As I understand it (I am a new Wikipedia editor), “hidden link” is not official Wikipedia terminology but is used to describe two different things:
an “Easter Egg” (bad) and
a “Piped Link” (OK)
A hidden link is only bad when it’s used to send a reader completely unexpected. On the other hand, if it’s used to make a sentence read smoothly, it’s fine. Kirsten Jørgensdatter (talk) 15:28, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Later in the article, the Copernican model is mentioned, so if anything other than heliocentrism must be linked, it would be Copernican heliocentrism and not Kepler’s Laws. Aseyhe (talk) 15:39, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To make a smooth read, “heliocentric model” is linked to the article heliocentrism. Linking to Kepler’s laws of planetary motion is surprising because that article is not about heliocentrism nor about history. This is exactly the “bad” scenario in my opinion. I agree that Copernican heliocentrism, is even better. Johnjbarton (talk) 16:37, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

These 3 sentences in the article’s lead
Some of the earliest cosmological models of the universe were geocentric, placing Earth at the center. During the European Scientific Revolution, astronomical observations led to a heliocentric model. Further observational improvements led to the realization that the Sun is one of a few hundred billion stars in the Milky Way, which is one of a few hundred billion galaxies in the observable universe.
are carrying a very (very) heavy load of several thousand years of history. While Copernican heliocentrism is definitely an interesting part of astronomical history, I don’t think it is sufficiently important to include in these 3 sentences. It was never accepted by the public. Only a handful of astronomers ever believed in it. It was basically just Ptolemy’s system with the earth and sun swapped and with equants purged. Truly its only significance for science is that Kepler thought Copernicus was onto something and it influenced him in developing his (actually heliocentric) model. (Copernicus’ model was heliostatic but not, technically, heliocentric.) Kirsten Jørgensdatter (talk) 13:25, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless, the relevant section Universe#Astronomical concepts mentions Copernicus prominently and Kepler not at all. That section appears to be well referenced, although I have not checked the references and am in no way an expert on the history. If that section is incorrect, I suggest starting there before adding Kepler to the lead. Aseyhe (talk) 14:29, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thank you. I will review the history (Universe#Astronomical concepts) section – including the references if possible – over the next few days. While history is not the focus of this article, if it’s going to be in the article it’s worthwhile getting it right. Kirsten Jørgensdatter (talk) 16:12, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ok you convinced me to restore the link to Heliocentrism.
I think we should cut some of the early history section and increase the coverage of the modern era history. I disagree that Kepler is in some way more significant than Copernicus. Copernicus is iconic for beginning the modern era, Kepler is not. Both models had serious fundamental errors, equally true of all models. Johnjbarton (talk) 17:16, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

>>>Both models had serious fundamental errors, equally true of all models.
That’s misleading at best. Copernicus’ model had circular orbits. It had planets following “epicycles”. It had all the planets moving at uniform speeds. The sun wasn’t even the center of the planets’ movements.
Compare that to Kepler. It’s 2025 and even today we still teach kids Kepler’s Laws in school. We give them homework with problems relating to one or another of Kepler’s Laws. (Nobody is assigning homework problems where you have to use a Copernican epicycle to calculate the position of a planet…)
I mentioned all the fundamental errors of Copernicus’s model (i.e. circular orbits, epicycles, uniform planetary speeds, and the sun not even at the center of the (incorrect) circular orbits of the planets). All of those errors were exposed within 70 years of De Revolutionibus. What would you say the “fundamental errors” of Kepler’s Laws (which are all derivable from Newton’s law of universal gravitation)? Kirsten Jørgensdatter (talk) 21:22, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In terms of our understanding of the Universe, the breakthrough was the heliocentric model of the solar system. Better models for the planetary orbits is important in many articles, like Solar System. I think you should take your efforts to those articles. These better models are off-topic for the Universe because they did not change the boundaries or character of what people thought of as the Universe. Johnjbarton (talk) 00:24, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you are demanding two sentences in the 2nd paragraph of the lead section about “change [of] the boundaries or character of what people thought of as the Universe“, then the appropriate link is not to an article that traces people talking vaguely about heliocentrism all the way back to Aristarchus of Samos but, rather, to Newton’s law of universal gravitation.
I have never had a disagreement with an editor like this. As a more experienced editor, what is the proper way to resolve this? Kirsten Jørgensdatter (talk) 01:50, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’m sorry you have a low opinion of our article on heliocentrism; I hope you will make contributions to improve it. I believe this is the right concept call out as a stepping stone between geocentric and galactic models. Newton used Kepler’s compact formulation of Brahe’s astronomical data to build a viable physical model for the the solar system. But in my opinion the scope of the Universe did not change.
Based on the article I think we should have an additional sentence to summarize the philosophical and religious concepts of the universe.
There are many articles in the Wikipedia:Namespace that discuss how to resolve disagreements. The most important ones are called “policy”, eg Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. At this point I think you probably want to WP:SEEKHELP. One way would be to post to the Talk pages for the Astronomy project or History of Science and ask for input. That post should be neutral, simply pointing to the appropriate topic on this page and asking editors to weigh in.
I will tell you from my experience that few editors will read through all we have said here to sort out what the arguments. Therefore I suggest that we conclude this thread, declare that it was primarily about the easter egg issue of the title, and start a new topic along the lines of “Proposal to change the history summary in the introduction”. Give your alternative text and ask for input. Johnjbarton (talk) 02:38, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion the content of Observable universe § Matter and mass and Observable universe § Large-scale structure belongs in this article. The term “observable universe” has a specific meaning in cosmology and that meaning does not include these terms. In this way the article has become a WP:Coatrack. I propose to move sourced material from that article into this article to the extent it makes sense. Johnjbarton (talk) 23:20, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think most of that content does not belong in universe, but some could be moved. I’m seeing three classes of content there:
1. A bunch of different ways to express the size of the observable universe (mass, number of galaxies, number of stars, number of atoms, …). I don’t think this belongs anywhere other than observable universe, although it could definitely be abbreviated there.
2. Specific observed cosmic structures. These don’t belong in universe any more than a list of planets or people would belong in universe. But it’s not clear they belong in observable universe either.
3. General concepts about cosmic structure and how it’s observed. This could fit in universe in a new section, but it might be better to actually make an independent page on large-scale structure.
Aseyhe (talk) 00:06, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Come to think of it, both (2) and (3) could fit into a large-scale structure article (and no need for a disambiguation — no one uses “large-scale structure” in any other noteworthy context). Aseyhe (talk) 00:29, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent, thanks! Johnjbarton (talk) 00:52, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Must Read

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Scroll to Top