Future Naming Scheme for Planets and Systems in Our Evolving Universe

Click For Summary
The discussion revolves around the need for a coherent naming scheme for celestial bodies in a futuristic context, particularly for a novel involving advanced interstellar travel. Participants explore the terminology for solitary star systems, suggesting "unary" as the appropriate term. The conversation also touches on how pilots might refer to celestial destinations, debating the use of colloquial versus formal names for moons and planets. Additionally, the concept of the universe's boundaries is examined, with the consensus that while the universe's size and shape remain uncertain, the idea of anything existing outside of it is philosophically contentious. The thread invites further insights and constructive input on these topics.
Omega_Prime
Messages
23
Reaction score
0
Ok, so I've been passionately researching my latest novel idea as it takes place in an extremely far fetched future with long range interstellar travel and all that and the brink of controlled time modulation etc...

While doing this, I've been able to name every site, system, planet of importance, however I find that an intelligent futuristic society would have some kind of tried and true, advanced naming scheme to reference planets, systems, galaxies etc apart from their relative Universal location as these humans might no longer consider "Earth" home as we do today (no more than my parents consider Africa home, as in Ancestral Eve Africa). For the most part this is done, my problem lies in things like:

1. What is the name for a solitary multiple star system (I hope I'm wording this correctly! - I get the naming scheme from 2 stars on: Binary, Trinary, Quaternary etc... but what is only one star system called?

2. Suppose a freighter was traveling from, say Europa to the Earth's moon. If said freighter's pilot was getting absolutely hammered minutes before preflight at a Europan tavern would he say he was headed to Earth's moon? Whereas another guy might say he's just flying to Phobos. Not having to say Mar's moon, Phobos?

3. Also, how set are we on defining what is "The" Universe? Have there been any discussions on the possibility that things may exist outside of what we perceive as existence? This is perhaps more philosophical than physically scientific though, or is that the realm of the Multiverse..? What I'm curious about is, can we explain the size and shape of the Universe? It appears that the universe we see can be spatially mapped 3 dimensionally right now, but this may change as we come to understand... other dimensions such as time to which we can treat like distances and locations. If such is probable.

I hope this leads to some good discussion, and I appreciate any constructive input, information or areas where I may acquire some more insight. I tried googling for solutions with the above which was rewarding, but I'm still amused with these for the moment.

Thanks for your time or 2 cents!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Omega_Prime said:
3. Also, how set are we on defining what is "The" Universe? Have there been any discussions on the possibility that things may exist outside of what we perceive as existence? This is perhaps more philosophical than physically scientific though, or is that the realm of the Multiverse..? What I'm curious about is, can we explain the size and shape of the Universe? It appears that the universe we see can be spatially mapped 3 dimensionally right now, but this may change as we come to understand... other dimensions such as time to which we can treat like distances and locations. If such is probable.

The size/shape of the universe is not known. It may be infinite or it may be finite but bounded. There are LOTS of discussions of the multiverse and such things but there is exactly zero evidence for any such. The "universe" means all that there is, so there is no such thing as "outside" of the universe.
 
You could use Terra and Luna, if you want some less colloquial names for Earth and its moon, respectively.
 
Recently, I’ve heard from Anton Petrov on YouTube that some tidally-locked planets around red-dwarf stars (such as TRAPPIST-1) have been suspected to flip around their own axis every once in a while — so that the former day side becomes the night side, and vice versa. This is presumed to happen for the same reason as why a T handle set in a rotating motion on a space station starts flipping back and forth. The latter is an issue we discussed for spaceship designs, when it came to how...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
5K
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
6K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
5K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
4K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
4K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K