weirdoguy
- 1,336
- 1,341
Then they should understand that on PHYSICSforums "Universe" has a precise meaning and they should use this word with that meaning.
The discussion centers on the distinction between the entire universe and the observable universe, emphasizing that empirical evidence cannot confirm their identity. Participants assert that while theories can suggest properties of the universe beyond our observational limits, definitive verification remains unattainable. The observable universe is defined by the distance light has traveled since the Big Bang, and any observations made are inherently limited to this boundary. The conversation highlights the importance of models, such as the standard model of cosmology, in understanding the universe's structure and expansion.
PREREQUISITESAstronomers, cosmologists, and physics enthusiasts interested in the nature of the universe and the limitations of observational evidence in cosmology.
Thus we may re-ask the initial question(s) within the Standard Model of Cosmology ...JMz said:I don't think even all cosmologists would agree with you. In particular, for those working with either multiverses or quantum-foam bubbles (followed by inflation), they seem to find it helpful to distinguish "everything" from "everything that shares our BB", with the latter being the "universe" and the former being "other universes" that do not, or have not so far, interacted with ours.
Not my usage, but I understand why they might find it useful.