[chiralSPO]

You say the universe cannot leak into anything since there  is nothing outside of the universe to leak into. However do we know that for sure. I would say our currently understanding of the universe is not good enough to disregard many possibilities , We simply don’t know enough.

It’s possible that what we consider to be the  universe is not the full story .

It's kinda definitional. Our universe is everything that is. If something is. It is part of the universe. If it's part of the universe then it is.

If you want to go all metaphysics and talk about multiverse stuff that's fine too, but then either each universe is a different facet of the same whole multiverse, and you have just swapped "multiverse" for "universe," or the universes are all distinct unique independent universes, and then there isn't any "leaking." If something can interact with part of our universe, it is part of our universe.

Maybe as we learn more about the universe we will need new words to describe new relationships and phenomena. But for now, we don't need to quibble about which word we will use to describe "everything"

[Zer0]

How about dragging the Frame of Reference to the scale of an Atom.

Are Atoms approximately 90% Empty Space?

But Electron Field is present All Over inside of the Atom, Right!

Ps - Congratulations geordief !
You seem to be making progress, leaps & bounds.
Excellent!!!
👍

[TommyJ]

Maybe as we learn more about the universe we will need new words to describe new relationships and phenomena. But for now, we don't need to quibble about which word we will use to describe "everything"

I think, we need new words and terms for many notions and concepts, some of them waiting 100 years ('time', 'space', nothingness' and so forth).
Oxford and Webster dictionaries do the job, searching new words around the world, and if a word is new and used and understood in the same way and mostly in many countries (in English), they put it as a candidate to be added to the dictionary.
Scientific definitions look as waiting something new to happen (as we might expect always).
Until then questioning of the terms and definitions are travelling throughout minds and discussions.

[Halc]

Are fields objects? Are they objects with the potentiality to become "things"?

'Object' connotes a 'thing' which has a property of location, velocity, exists for a duration within time, etc.
A field has none of these things and is thus not an object by any reasonable definition.
For that matter, 'universe' fails to meet any of that criteria and much confusion results from treating it as one.

Take the field 'altitude' for instance. The surface of Earth has, everywhere, an altitude, and thus the field can be measured anywhere. It doesn't have a location since it is defined for all points on the surface. It has no potential to become a thing, but since Earth anchors it, it would (unlike something like the EM field) cease to be meaningful if Earth ceased to exist.

[yor_on]

In Einsteins universe there is no outside. The definition is one of four parameters. length, width, height, time. So you need all four for this universe to exist. Without them there is nothing. No fields, no densities and stuff and no time.