Talk:Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Spaceflight (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spaceflight, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of spaceflight on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Astronomy (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe is within the scope of WikiProject Astronomy, which collaborates on articles related to Astronomy on Wikipedia.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Physics (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Source on revised imagery for quadrupole correction?[edit]

"After corrections all that remains is a nearly featureless surface and hence much less information than originally published." 71.199.2.101 (talk) 03:38, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Notes[edit]

This needs to be added back to the WMAP article. The problem is that it came from a press release, and it overstates the situations a bit...

  • Of course, this should be in the article. What do you mean "it overstates the situations a bit..."?
  • I waited since March 10 for a reply about how this "overstates the situations a bit", it is now March 29. So, I am adding it back.

On February 11, 2003, NASA released groundbreaking information about the age and composition of the universe. This release included the most intricate "baby picture" of the Universe ever taken. According to NASA, this picture "contains such stunning detail that it may be one of the most important scientific results of recent years".

Important Implications of NASA's findings

(Note: The first and last of the three points above are not proven.) Imahd (talk) 00:52, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

For the NASA's February 11, 2000 press release go here

I'm glad no one has decided to insert point 3 into the article because it's wrong. If anything, there were significant disagreements between the WMAP data and the inflationary theory. However, it hasn't yet been determined if these data were accurate of ir something was causing the data to be flawed. -- Duke nemmerle 12:02, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

  • I'm new to Wikipedia, but the inequality "0.0179 < Ωk <0.0081 (95%CL)" doesn't make any sense. Perhaps there is a missing minus sign or one the inequalities is reversed. I'm not a Wikipedia member, so I won't change it.

Chris' discussion[edit]

This is the first time that I have used Wikipedia, and if possible I wish to enter into discussion with the author(s) of this page regarding the observations, the models, the assumptions, and the number given for the minimum diameter of the universe. Could you please contact me at chrisow@shaw.ca.

  • Hi Chris, welcome to Wikipedia. This article, like most on Wikipedia has been edited by at least two dozen authors. If you have questions or comments about the article, you can post them right here. If you think you can improve the article, go right ahead and become another author. --noösfractal 20:32, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Hubble constant uncertainty[edit]

The article gives "71 (km/sec)/Mpc, +0.04/-0.03" The article Hubble's Law gives "71±4" - 100 times higher uncertainty. Which is right? Bubba73 (talk), 05:36, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Certainly the Hubble's law article. The errors are for a different quantity, called h, which is essentially the Hubble constant divided by 100. I have updated with the most recent WMAP figures, which are cited at Lambda-CDM model. –Joke 14:32, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
I did the same with the new data from "Five-Year Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) Observations: Data Processing, Sky Maps, and Basic Results[1] "
Values for h are given instead of H. Consequently, the values for H are off by a factor of 100. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.197.241.124 (talk) 18:31, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Recent Article[edit]

I recently found this article about how the big bang afterglow failed to show expected shadows caused by nearby cluster galaxies. The website is: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/09/060905104549.htm I think that something should be added relating to this article

Lagrange Discussion[edit]

It seems to me that the discussion on the Earth-Sun L2 point is rather extraneous and long. I suggest trimming it down to just a couple sentences. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Phædrus (talkcontribs) 18:22, 8 April 2007 (UTC).

Fine, I did it myself, though it may be somewhat sub-par. Phædrus 02:46, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Hubble constant[edit]

With this edit the value reported in the article was changed. Although no reference is cited for this I have applied WP:AGF and left the change in place, pending discussion. Can either value (old or new) be supported by a reliable source? (sdsds - talk) 03:27, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Is WMAP a "satellite"?[edit]

It seems that WMAP, while it is a "space probe" and a "spacecraft", is not technically a "satellite" and the NASA WMAP site does not use this term. The historical definition of a satellite is a small secondary object whose motion around a much more massive primary object is described as an ellipse and whose position is predicted by Keplerian elements. NASA is relatively consistent in confining the word "satellite" to spacecraft whose primary mission is conducted from a stable Earth orbit. For spacecraft orbiting other objects, "satellite" is qualified with the name of the primary body (i.e. Martian satellite). Spacecraft in solar orbit or in undefined trajectories are usually not referred to as "satellites". So the COROT mission spacecraft in a polar Earth orbit is a "satellite" and the Kepler mission spacecraft in an Earth trailing solar orbit is not. The Lissajous path traced by WMAP at L2 is not a classic "orbit" as WMAP is not gravitationally bound to that point and would wander away without active control. Am I wrong about any of this? Aldebaran66 (talk) 07:31, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Some basic 7 year data release information added. Some interesting anomolous results which the team haven't found an answer to yet. Even more interesting, it seems the only theory which predicts those results, the DFM, is well covered herein. Does anyone dare tell them they should include Wiki in their research sources??!Docjudith (talk) 16:52, 9 March 2010 (UTC)