Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Cosmos vs. Universe

  1. Jun 12, 2004 #1
    I'm sure this question is elementary for most of you, but I want to make sure I'm on the same page as everyone else.

    1. The cosmos is everything that exist.
    2. The universe is a subset of the cosmos and contains all of the galaxies and other stuff that has mass, including areas that have not yet been seen.

    Please confirm or explain where i've gone wrong. Thanks.
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Jun 13, 2004 #2

    Chronos

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member
    2015 Award

    universe and cosmos are words that describe the same feature. the universe includes all that we are capable of observing. anything that we cannot observe is not consequential to our universe.
     
  4. Jun 13, 2004 #3

    Janitor

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    I had never before seen any distinction made between those two words, for what it's worth.
     
  5. Jun 13, 2004 #4

    marcus

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member
    2015 Award
    Dearly Missed

    I never heard a distinction made either.

    I think it just has worked out historically that we need the two words

    cosmology is the building and testing of models of the universe
    (cosmologists study the universe)

    it would be clumsy to say "universe-ology" and to call them
    "universe-ologists"


    the microwave background radiation that fills the universe and is roughly the same age as the universe is called the

    "cosmic microwave background"

    it would be awkward to call it the "universal microwave background"
    particularly because "universal" is a much-used word in other contexts like "universal suffrage" in politics and "universal quantifier" in logic.
    Universal already has a meaning--it means something like "completely general and inclusive"

    so it is better to say "cosmic microwave background" at least IMHO

    --------------

    cosmos is the Greek word for jewell or ornament

    world comes from Anglo Saxon "wir aeld"
    which means literally "the age of mankind"

    the french word le monde comes from Latin "mundus"
    which was used for a long time as the word for universe
    or for the spherical ptolemaic system of earth sun moon planets and stars.

    the root meaning of the Latin "mundus", curiously enough,
    is "trim, nicely fashioned, handsomely made"
    one could say mundus when in english one might say "neat" or "cool"

    But somehow these words also came to stand for the All.

    it is curious what words different cultures have come to use for saying All.
     
  6. Jun 13, 2004 #5
    a google search for the word UNIVERSES- the plural of universe- gives 424 000 hits- clearly the concept of a "universe" as a sub-set that is defined by our observable region and/or the cosmic region we inhabit that is separated from other parallel universes/ brane-worlds/ etc is well known and firmly part of cosmological understanding-

    the leading minds in cosmology almost never refer to all-of-Existence as "The Universe" any longer- they use terms like the Multiverse/ the Megaverse/ the Landscape/ the Omniverse/ the Metaverse/ and many many other forms-

    the traditional meaning of universe as all existence as one- is for the most part dead- especially thanks to QM and "parallel universes" of the Many-Worlds Interpretation- since then the word universe has had a common meaning of only our region of the greater cosmos-

    people who still try to cling to the old meaning of the Universe as All are usually doing so out of a sort of conservative lexicon traditionalist rebellion- because talking about what is beyond our observation is scientifically meaningless- but they forget that science is a TOOL to observe the truth and not the Truth itself- and Truth must have a fundamental metaphysics to even exist- and all things considered- an INFINTE/ETERNAL multiverse/megaverse is an unavoidable logical metaphysical conclusion of causality/existence-

    >read Sir Martin Rees' work :wink:
    ___________________________

    /:set\AI transmedia laboratories

    http://setai-transmedia.com
     
    Last edited: Jun 13, 2004
  7. Jun 25, 2004 #6
    SetAI ] "but they forget that science is a TOOL to observe the truth and not the Truth itself- and Truth must have a fundamental metaphysics to even exist- and all things considered- an INFINTE/ETERNAL multiverse/megaverse is an unavoidable logical metaphysical conclusion of causality/existence- "

    Im sorry but this is not correct for one or more reasons and will reply to at bottom of this post. First I want to address cosmos versus Universe issue from my own most micros-sopcically technical viewpoint i.e.;

    I feel that cosmos-- ergo cosmology --involves only the the physical/physics/energetic aspects of the whole of Universe i.e. the Universe with a capital "U" is liked to God(es) ergo it is all that is physical and all that is abstract conceptual metaphysical. Thank you Bucky Fuller.

    Now back to SetAIs claim that "megaverse(s)" is somehow closer to the true becasue closer to reality.

    1) megaverse/multiverse parrallel/branes etc....are all theoretical ocnjectures, hypothesis etc.....

    2) even if they exist David Deustch of multiverse fame will be the firs to admit that gravity passes through all of these universe ergo gravity is the unifying force(bosonic) ergo the unifying interrelationship between all-- finite number of them within any time frame --. Unifyin is unity. Unit is one. Uni is one. Universe is the "verse" that connects all things contiguously.

    There is only one finite Universe but there may be one parrallel universe or many multi-verses that sum-total are the Universe.

    http://home.usit.net/~rybo6/rybo/

    Rybo
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?