From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Astronomy / Astronomical objects  (Rated Start-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon Supercluster is within the scope of WikiProject Astronomy, which collaborates on articles related to Astronomy on Wikipedia.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Astronomical objects, which collaborates on articles related to astronomical objects.
WikiProject Physics (Rated Start-class, Mid-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.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.


The second and fifth paragraphs appear to have roughly the same information. I don't consider myself expert enough to judge which paragraph is better therefore I'm not comfortable simply deleting one or the other. Can an expert delete/rewrite as apprpriate.Finewinescotland 18:16, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Both the 5th paragraph and the 2nd paragraph were added by User:WilliamKF, as was the reference to the paper by Hu et al. The 5th paragraph turns out to be the first paragraph of the paper by Hu et al. The second paragraph looks like a rewrite of the 5th paragraph. I'm guessing WillamKF may have copied the paragraph for convenience, rewritten it so that it was not a copyvio, and then simply forgotten to delete the source he was working from. Therefore, I have deleted the 5th paragraph. Cardamon 12:25, 11 January 2007 (UTC)


The first sentence of the second paragraph seems to contradict the third paragraph. Which of these is correct? TV4Fun 00:42, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Distance between Superclusters?[edit]

Is their any data about distances between the Superclusters? Specifically just how far of a streach is needed, minimum and maximum, to overcome the Horizon problem?--Zerothis (talk) 21:34, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

old list[edit]

Nearby superclusters
Distant Superclusters

This list was completely subsumed into the new tabular format (talk) 08:47, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Additional material[edit]


This PDF might be useful for additional information. (talk) 12:28, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

From SIMBAD:*&NbIdent=wild&Radius=2&Radius.unit=arcmin&submit=submit+id (talk) 12:31, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

The "SCl" survey (1996): (talk) 13:28, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

The old survey the SCl survey references (1994): Bibcode1994MNRAS.269..301E (talk) 00:33, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

There are 1011 entries in SIMBAD for "otype=SCG"... which would just about fit as a single list page...

Using a name search in SIMBAD nets you 75 entries... (talk)

Dynamically bound?[edit]

I was given to think that the SCL were the largest bound systems... but according to (Bibcode1998A&A...336...35J) they are not dynamically bound, hence their ellipsoidal structure, instead of spherical... (or are they all just in the process of condensing?) (talk) 13:07, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

local supercluster r < 70 Mpc/h[edit]

According to Bibcode1989MNRAS.238..155E (EEG 1989), the superclusters closer than 70Mpc are: (talk) 10:19, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

superclusters 75-150Mpc (same source): (talk) 10:31, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Intrasupercluster medium?[edit]

It seems that, logically, the medium between galaxy clusters within a supercluster would be slightly denser than the medium in the surrounding voids. Is there any description of this medium? Eebster the Great (talk) 04:02, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Ah...very disperse molecular hydrogen? -RadicalOneContact MeChase My Tail 04:04, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

How come no meniton of God?[edit]

I think He exist between the superclusters and propose calling these "spaces" heavenverse. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jewwankenobi (talkcontribs) 01:01, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Not gravitationally bound?[edit]

This is misleading, at best. The Shapley supercluster, for instance, is generally assumed to be gravitationally-bound. Not all superclusters might be, yet what really holds them together - or heaped them up in the first place - or whether at least some of them really do partake in Hubble expansion, is, as of today and for all I know simply unknown. Zero Thrust (talk) 22:26, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

This source says that (at least some) known galaxy clusters are in fact gravitationally bound: This source implies it: .
Therefore i suggest we change the text saying that some superclusters are known to be gravitationally bound. Any objections?
Fresheneesz (talk) 21:17, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Z-FORGE z=2.2 2012 protosupercluster[edit]

I can't seem to find a location for the center in the discovery paper, it gives three overdensity centres, (10:00:15.753, +02:15:39.56), (10:00:18.380, +02:14:58.81), (10:00:23.552, +02:14:34.13), and has a discussion that this is possibly a proto-super-cluster, or perhaps a cluster, it does however say it is not a protocluster. Bibcode2012ApJ...748L..21S ; a possible entry into the proto list. (talk) 09:41, 9 April 2012 (UTC)


I was wondering if the list should be split off. List of superclusters -- (talk) 12:35, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

No, because there's not enough non-list content here yet to stand on its own.
We could split the list, but we should only do that if we start to need the space. That's a long way off. (talk) 12:37, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
There's enough material for the list to stand on its own. There's enough research for the article to be greatly expanded. -- (talk) 14:40, 4 September 2014 (UTC)