weirdoguy
- 1,344
- 1,348
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 relationship between the entire universe and the observable universe, questioning whether they are identical or if the observable universe is merely a small portion of a much larger entity. Participants explore the implications of empirical evidence, the nature of observations, and the limitations of current models in cosmology.
Participants express multiple competing views regarding the nature of the observable universe and its relationship to the entire universe. There is no consensus on whether empirical evidence can confirm their identity or the implications of observations for understanding the universe as a whole.
Limitations include the dependence on definitions of observability, the untestable nature of certain predictions, and the unresolved status of various mathematical and theoretical aspects of 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.