# Talk:Planck (spacecraft)

## "launch"

I corrected the planned launch date from 2008 -> first quarter of 2007. The information was obtained from the ESA website.--Salsa man 18:53, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Changed it back again, I saw that the launch date has been delayed. --Salsa man 19:00, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I believe a redirection of Planck satellite to this page will be necessary as some media seems to refer to it by that name. See [1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.220.231.106 (talkcontribs)

It has been delayed from the mid-April date, I believe is now public knowledge. "A public announcement from Arianespace has been released that the 16 April launch will not be achieved", I am told. The new date is yet to be released. Wwheaton (talk) 03:03, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

## "Surveyor"

Planck is now just called "Planck", or the "Planck satellite" or the "Planck mission". Have a look at http://www.esa.int/esaSC/120398_index_0_m.html for example; "Planck Surveyor" is not used anymore. (I work on the Planck project at ESA) Xav71176 10:49, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I mostly see it as PLANCK in the literature. --128.163.161.42 (talk) 14:09, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

## "Poor page editor complaint"

I transcribed quotes from great newspaper article from an astrophysicist working on the plank project and inserted them appropriately within the aims section of the page, in clear and succinct English. I checked the JWST page first to check the style. some idiot deleted what i wrote, after i took time on it, without leaving any comments here etc. so i wrote :

[personal attack removed] has no inherent understanding of the subject matter, and rather than let this text be sullied by the quoted thoughts of an eminent astrophycist on the subject of the goals of planck, [personal attack removed]. feynmann and sagan or hawkins would never stoop to writing such a load of crap for mass consumption... look at the bloody james webb telescope page for an example of how this page will end up. [personal attack removed]. It irks me that some on this website with no inherent understanding of what they study feel themselves compelled to police web pages as if their blind reiteration of what they have read in science books makes them qualified to act as a WIKI SCIENCE PAGE EDITOR. [personal attack removed]

Thanks. good luck with your studies.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.27.217.102 (talkcontribs) 13:54, 5 March 2009

• Please do not make personal attacks against other editors. If you have a problem with the content of the article, please calmly discuss it here. --GW 14:15, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

It's rediculous that someone should spend half an hour editing a contribution conform to the wiki modus operandi, and furthermore of interest, only for some complete buffon to erase it for his own egoistic and non scientific reasons in a way which is fairly meaningless for the general readership. whoever erased it is a thick and obtuse person. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.29.41.3 (talk) 00:38, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

This is why Wiki edits can be undone and restored so easily. Restore it yourself, and call for help from other editors if an edit war starts to take shape. Then, consensus rules. That's what these talk pages are for. But civility is the rule, right? We gotta be polite to one another, even when we begin to get irritated. People mostly do intend well, and it's a free universe where people are allowed to have their own opinions. Wwheaton (talk) 02:56, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

## News report of 2009-07 says Planck contains coldest spot in universe beyond Earth

… [that Earthlings know of]. Per space.com news. My question is one that pop news never answers: How much mass is actually at that temperature? 50 kg? 50 µg? I'm guessing more like the latter, but I don't know. — ¾-10 03:12, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

## New news

Here is some new information on the spacecraft:

Andrew Colvin • Talk 04:38, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

The best source for this is the original press release from ESA: http://www.esa.int/esaCP/SEMF2FRZ5BG_index_0.html Mike Peel (talk) 07:24, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Miles Mathis gives an explanation for the "anomalies" found by Planck in the CBR pattern:

86.86.38.156 (talk) 16:59, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

## Picture of the Universe?

So today on Engadget there was a post that the Planck had taken a picture of "the whole universe."

Should this be mentioned (if it is indeed true)? If so, an explanation of how this picture represents "the whole universe" should go along with it. I won't pretend to understand the sciences involved.Scryer_360 (talk) 17:13, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

## What is planned after March 2013

Will it continue to collect data ? How long does it have fuel to stay at L2 ? Will it be sent to another heliocentric orbit like Herchel ? - Rod57 (talk) 03:36, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

## Removing/reworking latest section

After reading the section called "Confirmation of "Axis of Evil", Anisotropy, and Alignment of Anisotropies to Ecliptic/Equinoxes from WMAP and COBE", I'm going to remove it. The claims within the section (confirmation of an "axis of evil", challenging the Cosmological Principle, indications of non-Gaussianity, challenging of the Big Bang, inflationary, etc. models and the Copernican principle) appear to be unsupported by the sources cited. One source (judging by the references to the LHC still being a year away from opening when it opened in 2012) appears to predate the 2013 findings (and naturally doesn't mention the Planck findings) and is thus useless for this section, and the other two sources, particularly the one from Caltech, do not appear to support the claims; the Caltech paper says in its conclusions: "We have demonstrated that little evidence is seen for non-Gaussianity, although some deviations from isotropy are found." The other article quoted says: "Beyond the anomalies, however, the Planck data conform spectacularly well to the expectations of a rather simple model of the Universe" and "We see an almost perfect fit to the standard model of cosmology, but with intriguing features that force us to rethink some of our basic assumptions." It seems that these observations are not realy as earth-shattering as the section as written would lead us to believe. I'm a little out of my depth here, so I'm not going to attempt to rewrite the section myself, but perhaps someone with more background knowledge than I could write a section if one is warranted. Writ Keeper  20:03, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Oh, nevermind, the subsection above it already summarizes the findings. Probably fine as it is, then. Writ Keeper  20:05, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Here is the abstract from Planck 2013 results. XXIII. Isotropy and statistics of the CMB http://arxiv.org/pdf/1303.5083v1.pdf

The two fundamental assumptions of the standard cosmological model — that the initial fluctuations are statistically isotropic and Gaussian — are rigorously tested using maps of the CMB anisotropy from the Planck satellite. The detailed results are based on studies of four independent estimates of the CMB that are compared to simulations using a fiducial CDM model and incorporating essential aspects of the Planck measurement process. Deviations from isotropy have been found and demonstrated to be robust against component separation algorithm, mask and frequency dependence. Many of these anomalies were previously observed in the WMAP data, and are now confirmed at similar levels of significance (around 3 [sigma]). However, we find little evidence for non-Gaussianity with the exception of a few statistical signatures that seem to be associated with specific anomalies. In particular, we find that the quadrupole-octopole alignment is also connected to a low observed variance of the CMB signal. The dipolar power asymmetry is now found to persist to much smaller angular scales, and can be described in the low-regime by a phenomenological dipole modulation model. Finally, it is plausible that some of these features may be reflected in the angular power spectrum of the data which shows a deficit of power on the same scales. Indeed, when the power spectra of two hemispheres defined by a preferred direction are considered separately, one shows evidence for a deficit in power, whilst its opposite contains oscillations between odd and even modes that may be related to the parity violation and phase correlations also detected in the data. Whilst these analyses represent a step forward in building an understanding of the anomalies, a satisfactory explanation based on physically motivated models is still lacking. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wyattmj (talkcontribs) 16:31, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Right, but the point is that those are specific anomalies, and other than those anomalies, there is little evidence for non-Gaussianity, as the passage states. So I think it might be a little bit cherry-picking of the source to use that in support of all the things you're claiming. Like I said: there's already a DRN discussion about this content; I'd suggest we let that discussion play out and then use the results of that to decide about adding the content here. Writ Keeper  16:35, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
Also, given that none of your sources discuss the Copernican Principle or the "axis of evil"; using them to support your statements about such are pretty clearly synthesis, which is contrary to policy. Writ Keeper  16:44, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
The specific anomalies are at the largest angles, which means they are by far the most important. Were the anomalies at the last 4 multipoles, for instance (say 1996-2000), it would probably not amount to much. The reason cosmologists are concerned about the large scale anomalies, is because it does present a major issue for the standard model, and Planck was looked to to referee the anomalies found in WMAP, and in fact served that purpose. That is why we are seeing articles in New Scientist like "Planck shows almost perfect cosmos – plus axis of evil". This is being recognized, and Planck is the key to all of this, so please do not try and take this observation away from Planck. If you want to work on the edit constructively, please join in. Clearly the large scale observations are actually "features" now, no longer "anomalies".72.46.228.155 (talk) 20:58, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
I think that the anomalies or features should definitely be mentioned. They are big news and Planck confirmed them. --Timtak (talk) 21:09, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

## New, Interesting Article Focuses on the Great Results from Planck

We should work into article http://arxiv.org/pdf/1304.2785v1.pdf

Inflationary paradigm in trouble after Planck2013 Anna Ijjas, Paul J. Steinhardt, Abraham Loeb Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, Cambridge, MA 02138, USA University Observatory Munich, 81679 Munich, Germany Department of Physics, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ 08544, USA Princeton Center for Theoretical Science, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ 08544 USA

Abstract The recent Planck satellite combined with earlier results eliminate a wide spectrum of more complex inflationary models and favor models with a single scalar field, as reported in the analysis of the collaboration. More important, though, is that all the simplest inflaton models are disfavored by the data while the surviving models – namely, those with plateau-like potentials – are problematic.

We discuss how the restriction to plateau-like models leads to three independent problems: it exacerbates both the initial conditions problem and the multiverse-unpredictability problem and it creates a new difficulty which we call the inflationary “unlikeliness problem.” Finally, we comment on problems reconciling inflation with a standard model Higgs, as suggested by recent LHC results. In sum, we find that recent experimental data disfavors all the best-motivated inflationary scenarios and introduces new,serious difficulties that cut to the core of the inflationary paradigm. Forthcoming searches for B-modes, non-Gaussianity and new particles should be decisive.Wyattmj (talk) 23:47, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

## New Table Display Better?

A new table display (parameters are now horizontal) was added - this seems to fit the article page better - the old original display (parameters are vertical) remains at the moment but is remmed-out (in case one needs to compare the two versions - or revert - for some reason) - both displays are presented below for comparison - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 15:38, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

OLD VERTICAL DISPLAY (Original)

Cosmological parameters from 2013 Planck results[1][2][3]
Parameter Symbol Planck
Best fit
Planck
68% limits
Planck+lensing
Best fit
Planck+lensing
68% limits
Planck+WP
Best fit
Planck+WP
68% limits
Planck+WP
+HighL
Best fit
Planck+WP
+HighL
68% limits
Planck+lensing
+WP+highL
Best fit
Planck+lensing
+WP+highL
68% limits
Planck+WP
+highL+BAO
Best fit
Planck+WP
+highL+BAO
68% limits
Age of the universe
(Ga)
${\displaystyle t_{0}}$ 13.819 13.813±0.058 13.784 13.796±0.058 13.8242 13.817±0.048 13.8170 13.813±0.047 13.7914 13.794±0.044 13.7965 13.798±0.037
Hubble's constant
( kmMpc·s )
${\displaystyle H_{0}}$ 67.11 67.4±1.4 68.14 67.9±1.5 67.04 67.3±1.2 67.15 67.3±1.2 67.94 67.9±1.0 67.77 67.80±0.77
Physical baryon density ${\displaystyle \Omega _{b}h^{2}}$ 0.022068 0.02207
±0.00033
0.022242 0.02217
±0.00033
0.022032 0.02205
±0.00028
0.022069 0.02207
±0.00027
0.022199 0.02218
±0.00026
0.022161 0.02214
±0.00024
Physical cold dark matter density ${\displaystyle \Omega _{c}h^{2}}$ 0.12029 0.1196±0.0031 0.11805 0.1186±0.0031 0.12038 0.1199±0.0027 0.12025 0.1198±0.0026 0.11847 0.1186±0.0022 0.11889 0.1187±0.0017
Dark energy density ${\displaystyle \Omega _{\Lambda }}$ 0.6825 0.686±0.020 0.6964 0.693±0.019 0.6817 0.685+0.018
−0.016
0.6830 0.685+0.017
−0.016
0.6939 0.693±0.013 0.6914 0.692±0.010
Density fluctuations at 8h−1 Mpc ${\displaystyle \sigma _{8}}$ 0.8344 0.834±0.027 0.8285 0.823±0.018 0.8347 0.829±0.012 0.8322 0.828±0.012 0.8271 0.8233±0.0097 0.8288 0.826±0.012
Scalar spectral index ${\displaystyle n_{s}}$ 0.9624 0.9616±0.0094 0.9675 0.9635±0.0094 0.9619 0.9603±0.0073 0.9582 0.9585±0.0070 0.9624 0.9614±0.0063 0.9611 0.9608±0.0054
Reionization optical depth ${\displaystyle \tau }$ 0.0925 0.097±0.038 0.0949 0.089±0.032 0.0925 0.089+0.012
−0.014
0.0927 0.091+0.013
−0.014
0.0943 0.090+0.013
−0.014
0.0952 0.092±0.013

NEW HORIZONTAL DISPLAY

Cosmological parameters from 2013 Planck results[1][2][3]
Parameter Age of the universe (Ga) Hubble's constant
( kmMpc·s )
Physical baryon density Physical cold dark matter density Dark energy density Density fluctuations at 8h−1 Mpc Scalar spectral index Reionization optical depth
Symbol ${\displaystyle t_{0}}$ ${\displaystyle H_{0}}$ ${\displaystyle \Omega _{b}h^{2}}$ ${\displaystyle \Omega _{c}h^{2}}$ ${\displaystyle \Omega _{\Lambda }}$ ${\displaystyle \sigma _{8}}$ ${\displaystyle n_{s}}$ ${\displaystyle \tau }$
Planck
Best fit
13.819 67.11 0.022068 0.12029 0.6825 0.8344 0.9624 0.0925
Planck
68% limits
13.813±0.058 67.4±1.4 0.02207
±0.00033
0.1196±0.0031 0.686±0.020 0.834±0.027 0.9616±0.0094 0.097±0.038
Planck+lensing
Best fit
13.784 68.14 0.022242 0.11805 0.6964 0.8285 0.9675 0.0949
Planck+lensing
68% limits
13.796±0.058 67.9±1.5 0.02217
±0.00033
0.1186±0.0031 0.693±0.019 0.823±0.018 0.9635±0.0094 0.089±0.032
Planck+WP
Best fit
13.8242 67.04 0.022032 0.12038 0.6817 0.8347 0.9619 0.0925
Planck+WP
68% limits
13.817±0.048 67.3±1.2 0.02205
±0.00028
0.1199±0.0027 0.685+0.018
−0.016
0.829±0.012 0.9603±0.0073 0.089+0.012
−0.014
Planck+WP
+HighL
Best fit
13.8170 67.15 0.022069 0.12025 0.6830 0.8322 0.9582 0.0927
Planck+WP
+HighL
68% limits
13.813±0.047 67.3±1.2 0.02207
±0.00027
0.1198±0.0026 0.685+0.017
−0.016
0.828±0.012 0.9585±0.0070 0.091+0.013
−0.014
Planck+lensing
+WP+highL
Best fit
13.7914 67.94 0.022199 0.11847 0.6939 0.8271 0.9624 0.0943
Planck+lensing
+WP+highL
68% limits
13.794±0.044 67.9±1.0 0.02218
±0.00026
0.1186±0.0022 0.693±0.013 0.8233±0.0097 0.9614±0.0063 0.090+0.013
−0.014
Planck+WP
+highL+BAO
Best fit
13.7965 67.77 0.022161 0.11889 0.6914 0.8288 0.9611 0.0952
Planck+WP
+highL+BAO
68% limits
13.798±0.037 67.80±0.77 0.02214
±0.00024
0.1187±0.0017 0.692±0.010 0.826±0.012 0.9608±0.0054 0.092±0.013
Very nice Doc, after seeing the new additions last night I'd thought this might look better, but decided to work on it today, lol. Huntster (t @ c) 21:22, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for your comments - they're *greatly* appreciated - the effort was fun - thanks again - and - enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 22:03, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

### Table caption

The table's very easy on the eyes, but still not easy to read. Could we have a bit of description below the table? Perhaps an explanation as to what Best fit, 68% limits, lensing, WP, HighL and BAO mean, and which row is most accurate, so to speak. Thanks. nagualdesign (talk) 22:41, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

## Poincare sphere

The article on the Poincaré homology sphere references data from WMAP that there was very low power for angular correlations greater than 60 degrees, and that this could possibly be explained by the universe having the shape of a Poincare sphere. The hypothesis dates back to 2003 and is presented here: physics world article there's a ref to a 2003 article in Nature, too -- so the question is -- its now 13 years later, does data from Planck confirm or deny this hypothesis, or leave it unchanged? Could an expert add the required 1-2 sentences to the homology sphere article to update that status? 67.198.37.16 (talk) 20:03, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Hmm. I'm now plowing through this: physics forums discussions. 67.198.37.16 (talk) 20:09, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
Never mind. The final post in that thread seems to summarize the situation. 67.198.37.16 (talk) 20:23, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
• ^ a b Cite error: The named reference planck_overview was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
• ^ a b Cite error: The named reference planck_overview2 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
• ^ a b Cite error: The named reference planck_overview3 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).