# Template talk:Physical cosmology

## changes

I made a few changes to the template. I put in the WMAP image instead of the big bang image, although I'm not really wedded to either. It would be nice to have the WMAP image with a white background, or there's probably another image out there that's great. I also pulled out some links that I thought were too technical, redundant or were really particle-physicisy. It would be great to have a page, maybe brane cosmology or something less specific, that talked about the interplay of modern high-energy physics and cosmology, but having links to M-theory, string theory, grand unified theory, when only a small fraction of cosmologists work on that, seemed like too much. The template won't be particularly usable if it has far too many links in it.

Anyways, this template is still pretty new so I decided to take some liberties and see what people think. –Joke137 30 June 2005 21:45 (UTC)

Nice work, Joke, although I disagree on some points. I requested the template for Intelligent Design to allow readers examining ID to navigate alternatives to ID's approach to cosmology. IMHO grand unified theory, string theory & particularly M-theory offer some of the best secular arguments to ID. Also, their exposure in the media may drive a large number of readers to Wikipedia, and they should be offered a better map to cosomology.
Could you take a look at Template:Terri Schiavo or Template:Creationism2 and examine how they've used subcategories?--ghost 1 July 2005 23:37 (UTC),,,,

## Non-standard cosmologies

anty gravaty statick electrowmagnetic gravaty time worp vessil) magnetic radashon forsfeeld

## Redshift

As you certainly have noticed, I have revised the template somewhat. My remaining concern is the presense of Redshift. This is not a purely cosmological phenomenon, and so I think that it should be either

1. removed or
2. a "Redshift (cosmological)" or "Cosmological Redshift" page created and that refered to instead.

(I notice that cosmological redshift currently redirects to Hubble's Law, but that can easily be overridden.) --EMS | Talk 17:59, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Since there are already pages called gravitational redshift and Doppler effect, I don't really see the need. Of course, the redshift page isn't entirely about cosmology, but it still seems to fit reasonably well. –Joke137 18:25, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

It seems to me that the gravitational redshift and redshift articles somewhat overlap, and that is not good. My suggestion is to further split the Redshift page, creating new cosmological redshift and relativistic doppler effect articles. Then the current "redshift" article becomes essentially an overview/disambiguation page.

I leave this idea here for your consideration. It is low on the priority list. In the meantime, it remains my advice that redshift be removed from this template, but I will not remove it for you. --EMS | Talk 19:05, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

I like to make a point: Hubble's law... (2) that this doppler-shift measured velocity, of various galaxies receding from the Earth is proportional to their distance from the Earth

v = H0D, with H0 the constant of proportionality (the Hubble constant) between the "proper distance" D to a galaxy

IS NOT TRUE. Just like... There is a shift in tone, the further a sound travels away from an observer. Example: a car horn passing by.

We don't notice the supple shift in hue, since galaxies flow (travel) VERY slowly (beyond our timeframe).

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.28.211.155 (talk) 01:15, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

I realize that QSS isn't "mainstream," and please correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't it 2nd place behind the big bang at present? If so, I believe it should be included for historical interest. --James S. 13:44, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

"2nd place"? I'm afraid that's a bit of original research. Do you have a citation for its "second place status"? There are a lot of ideas that happened in the history of physical cosmology. This template isn't about the history of cosmology but rather about the present state of research cosmology. QSS is rejected by cosmologists, as Ned Wright indicates on his page, for example. --ScienceApologist 14:49, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
I've read the counter-arguments, and I have to say that they seem rather weak, requiring more handwaving and suspect use of questionable graphical presentation techniques than solid mathematical use of statistics. I was asking you a question: Do you know of any cosmological theory other than the big bang which is accepted by a greater number of credentialed scientists than quasi-steady state? If so, which one? Furthermore, do you agree that theoretical synthesis is important for refinement of scientific theories? If so, is there any reason that at least one major failed theory of the past should not be included in the list of cosmological theories? I don't believe I need to tell you what happens to progress in a field when only positive results are published. --James S. 14:58, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Please note that Wright is answered here, and an additional rationale for studying alternative cosmologies is given here. --James S. 15:07, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Further, Hoyle et al. (2000) book. --James S. 23:37, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

If you're thinking a "major failed theory" should be included for "historical interest", then it is the steady-state cosmology. QSS is nowhere near major. I will revert.

May I point out that this template is for the major cosmology articles, and that plenty of scientific theories have no credible alternative? How about, say, evolution, or the theory that vision in mammals arises from light focused on the retina? –Joke 01:39, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

1. Is the assertion that QSS is "nowhere near major" sourced and verifiable, or just your point of view?
2. Do you know of any other alternatives to big bang cosmology which have more proponents than QSS?
3. The document which SA claims refutes QSS is not peer-reviewed. Are there any more appropriate sources for this controversy upon which we should rely?
4. There are still explanatory gaps in big bang cosmology, e.g. dark matter. Does the censorship of the second-place theory do service to potential progress by synthesis?
5. Do you think the Quasi-steady state cosmology article sufficiently indicates that it is a failed, non-mainstream theory in its introduction and throughout? If not, then I encourage you to edit it so that its inclusion will serve the interest of cosmology history. If so, then what is the problem with including it on the template?
6. QSS doesn't make a-priori assumptions about the relative locality of multiple "little bangs" which it postulates. Given great enough distance between local "little bangs," observers within each would observe the same radio source and quasar counts vs. flux; blackbody CMB implying a locally dense, isothermal initiation(s), as well as local deuterium, He-3, He-4, and Li-7 abundances. It seems to me that the big bang proponents are still arguing only against "steady state," which is long abandoned by its proponents, and ignoring the "quasi" part altogether. Do you disagree? --James S. 02:24, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
1. Yes. See SPIRES. The Hoyle, Burbidge and Narlikar papers have 37 citations between them. Important papers typically receive hundreds or even thousands of citations (e.g. [1]).
2. No scientific ones.
3. No, other than the scientific community's complete lack of attention to QSS. (You may also want to see Peebles, Principles of Physical Cosmology, where he briefly mentions it, if I recall correctly.)
4. The template is for important articles about cosmology. QSS is not. Plenty of other cosmology articles are not.
5. I haven't read it lately.
6. I just don't think they care.

Sorry for my curt replies, but I've told myself not to get embroiled in these sorts of arguments any more. –Joke 02:40, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

As Joke has clearly answered the points, QSS is thus removed. There is no reason to include it since it cannot explain the major findings of precision cosmology. It is not considered by the vast majority (perhaps every person) in the field of physical cosmology as a model that competes in explanatory or predictive power. --ScienceApologist 14:11, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

The assertion that Joke clearly answered any but the first few questions is plainly absurd on its face. Science is not just about positive results, but also about failures and the reasons for those failures. To censor failed theories invites repetition of the past. "Precision cosmology" does not exist, because there are still large explanatory gaps in even the most well-respected cosmological theories, e.g. dark matter and the spacetime curvature sign, and the "precision" that many of the cosmologically-relevant observations are specified is often far greater than their accuracy. For example, the distance of local group galaxies isn't even known to within 15%.
Would you censor the discussion of alchemy from Chemistry? Leonardo from Airplane? The discussion of the failed Lewis cubical atom theory from Atom? Of course not.
Why are you so sensitive about these failed historical theories? Does it not behoove an encyclopedia to present historical background, or not? Wikipedia is not paper. --James S. 16:44, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

QSS has essentially no historical significance whatsoever. It was invented by some apologists for the original steady state theory, and has been ignored since its invention. The steady state theory does have historical signficance, but it is a subjective, debatable point whether it needs to be included on the template. My feeling is no. By the way, what is this about the spacetime curvature sign? The space curvature is one of the best measured quantities in cosmology, and it is very nearly zero. Frankly, this seems like a strange place to be having this discussion. Nobody is trying to censor QSS from Wikipedia, we're just saying it's not among the ten or so most important cosmology articles. –Joke 17:28, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with your opinions about the historical significance of failed and 2nd-place theories.
I meant to write the space curvature sign -- not spacetime -- which as you point out is measured very close to zero, but this "best" measurement still leaves both positive and negative values in the 95% confidence interval.
I agree this is an odd place for the discussion, but I think listing the failed and nonmainstream theories on the template is a service to Wikipedia's readers. I am a little concerned that not everyone is being entirely honest about whether or not the QSS article is "biased" or not. Certainly it is factually disputed. But I think the QSS article makes that perfectly clear and does not suffer from any bias at all. I have repeatedly asked for an example of such bias and await an answer. --James S. 17:42, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
QSS is rightly included on the nonstandard cosmologies page as an example of an alternative cosmology. The QSS article is biased in that it states certain points as fact which are actually disputed by many cosmology texts and papers. --ScienceApologist 18:31, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
QSS cosmology is not necessarily distinguishable from big bang cosmology. This is clear from first principles: Consider two big bang-like creation events so distant that their light cones do not intersect. Observers in either would, by definition, be unable to distinguish their local single creation event from the two in existence.
Because the confidence interval over the shape of space includes positive (hyperbolic, open), zero (Euclidean, open), and negative (closed) curvatures, the possible existence of open topologies does not allow QSS to be ruled out.
Therefore, big bang cosmology is a special, N=1 case of quasi-steady state cosmology, and any attempt to claim that QSS is controversial is false on its face, because it includes the N=1 big bang case.
There is no evidence that N<2. Therefore, QSS is a noncontroversial cosmology. Because QSS includes big bang cosmology at N=1, therefore QSS is also a notable cosmology, and should be treated as such.

Replied there. As an idea of an "extension" to physical cosmology it is fundamentally untestable which is separate from the idealization of qss by Narlikar, for example. Therefore qss is rightly removed. --ScienceApologist 23:30, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

## No personal attacks

I object to being called an edit warrior. I am trying to help you see that excluding QSS is a monumental editorial mistake on this template. QSS is not necessarily distinguishable from big bang cosmology. --James S. 01:26, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I did not call you an edit warrior. I am calling this an edit war, which it manifestly is. I am participating, just as much as you and SA are, and I think we should maintain the status quo until we have worked this out. That is not a personal attack. –Joke 01:30, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
I for one strongly object to both the allegation of a "personal attack" by Joke137, and to the statement that the exclusion of QSS is a "monumental editorial mistake". QSS being big bang at N = 1 does not give QSS the standing of big bang theory in the least. In fact, under Occam's razor the need for an extra parameter to achieve the same result argues against QSS being preferable.
This template is reserved for the most significant articles in the category of physical cosmology. Lacking any evidence that QSS is itself highly respected and/or its article higly sought after, QSS does not belong in this template. I call on James S. to rescind his response above and to apologize the Joke137 for his inappropriate and unfounded personal attack allegation. --EMS | Talk 01:51, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

N=1 is more precise than N>0. Therefore Occam's razor supports QSS as notable, and opposes the status quo. I object to this discourse being referred to as a war. War metaphors serve little purpose and can abscure the truth. I intend to re-add QSS to this template after an undisclosed "cooling off" period. --James S. 02:10, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

James S. wrote:
N=1 is more precise than N>0. Therefore Occam's razor supports QSS as notable, and opposes the status quo.
That is just plain not true. Occam's razor calls for the least complex explanation that fits the facts to be prefered. If QSS includes big bang as a special case, then it is more complex. This means that for QSS to be able to be notable, there must be some compelling evidence for a QSS universe where ${\displaystyle N\,\neq \,1}$. Even then, the real test of worthiness for inclusion is QSS itself being of compelling interest to people studying physical cosmology. At this time and as best I can tell, it is not.
Perhaps an example from the realm of relativity would be helpful: Brans-Dicke theory has a tunable parameter ω such that it correponds to general relativity when ω = ∞. In the 1960's Dicke and Goldman reported evidence that the Sun was oblate enough to account for 10% of the discrepancy between the Newtonian predication for the precession of the orbit of Mercury and the observed value which general relativity exactly predicts. Given that oblateness, general relativity's prediction would then not be correct, but instead a discrepancy would exist that Brans-Dicke theory could account for. This created a lot of interest in Brans-Dicke theory in the 1960s and 1970s By 1980, additional studies had shown that the Sun is not significantly oblate, and interest in Brans-Dicke theory waned as a result. --EMS | Talk 04:32, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

## Are more precise answers more complex?

They certainly are. However, precision is not accuracy. Since there is no way for observers inside QSS and big bang cosmologies to distinguish between the two, Occam's razor supports QSS over big bang cosmology, because N=1 is more precise than N>0 and N =/= 1. --James S. 17:46, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Then
1. you do not understand Occam's Razor, and
2. you appear to be committed to giving QSS an unjustified level of standing.
QSS is not highly respected within the field of cosmology and it is incumbent on Wikipedia, as an encylopdia documenting human knowledge, to respect that. For that reason QSS is not suitable for this template. To paraphrase the unjustified weight part of the NPOV standard, QSS does not belong in this template, even if it is right, and even if you can prove it. --EMS | Talk 19:37, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
Why do you suppose that I don't understand Occam's razor? I am committed to helping write an encyclopedia, and the encyclopedia I choose to write should conform to Occam's razor. --James S. 06:49, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
It is very important that we conform to Wikipedia policy. We should not conform to our own personal ideas about what the encyclopedia should be. --ScienceApologist 15:03, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
James S. wrote:
Why do you suppose that I don't understand Occam's razor?
The simple answer is that you keep insisting that QSS with N=1 is superior to big bang. Occam's razor (and you should click on that link and read about it) has been paraphrased as "do not assume any more variables than is necessary". Assuming a more general paradigm and using N=1 to get the same place that big bang takes you to without the use of N is an unnecessary complexity. In any case, this business of Occam's razor is a red herring and I will not discuss it more after this. The real issue is that QSS, rightly or wrongly, is not well respected amongst comologists. That is why QSS does not belong in this template, and unless that situation changes I will join with the others to keep it out. --EMS | Talk 17:22, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
You have not been reading what I have been writing. QSS only states N>0. Since there is no evidence that N<2, N>0 is simpler, and since by definition QSS and big bang cosmologies are not necessarily distinguishable, the simpler explanation must be preferred. --James S. 19:07, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
I am done with arguing about Occam's razor with you. QSS is not a standard cosmological theory, nor is it prominent within the field of cosmology. Your arguments keep coming down to "it should be prominent". That is not what we will rule on. Wikipedia follows the crowd instead of leading it. Until and unless QSS somehow becomes a prominent theory, its placement in this template will not be permitted. --EMS | Talk 19:27, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Not exactly an explanation. --ScienceApologist 14:12, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
i realise im a year late but alternate theories are valid, the big bang theory is far from complete and as such QSS is the current alternate theory to it. it is both a valid theory and an alternative to the big bang theory!Xbehave 23:28, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

## Big Bang Theory?

There was no matter in the universe during the time of the Big Bang. They say that time itself was created after the Big Band but where was the space in which the Big Bang occured. It must have been complete white space or another dimension so it leaves us with one question: How old is the universe? It must been very old that time can't recall so theorically the Big Bang theory is true but it also means that the creation of the universe had helping hands: GOD. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 151.199.192.138 (talk) 16:21, 6 March 2007 (UTC).

No the flying spaghetti monster started everything. He told me in my dreams. 218.101.74.81 07:59, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
none of the above it was in fact me, i used a quantum entangled particle to go back in time create the universe then order me a pizza, some however would just put it down to my telekinesis or FSM interventions that made me think it was me?Xbehave 23:35, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Hey Xbehave, Go make your own quantum entangled particle. If someone hadn't created the particle already, you wouldn't be able to use it to go back. Cart before the horse, fella. But then you don't seem to be too interested in reality anyway. And don't try to use the temporal paradox card. For me to believe that you used a particle that didn't yet exist, to go back and create it, is a much bigger leap of faith than anything my pastor, Bible, Jesus, and common sense asks me to believe (Design). Yes, the Bubble theory (very plausible though it is) only pushes back the question: Where did the original matter come from that created the Bubbles that created the Big Bang, that created our Universe? I can imagine that Jesus wanted to kick back one day and blow some Bubbles. And His breath and Word have probably created countless universes from that one action. I wonder if the beings in those universes are as silly as some in this one, to claim there was no creator. Dude, you are way out of your league. So is the flying spaghetti monster. But now I'm wanting some spaghetti, right? Anyway, I hope you find out before it's too late. There will be no unbelievers at death. Eternity's a long "time".Spacegeek7000 (talk) 02:11, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

## Odd template residue

I'm seeing {{#if:Einstein· Hawking. Friedman· Lemaître· Hubble· Penzias· Wilson· Gamow· Dicke· Zel'dovich· Mather· Smoot| at the top of this template, and every page it's on. I'm running Firefox 1.5.0.12 on CentOS. I don't see it from before the moves and redirects, but I do afterwards. Just thought I'd bring that to someone's attention. --Falcorian (talk) 21:10, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

The problem was caused by an edit made to {{PhysicsNavigation‎}}. I've reverted the edit, and the problem should now have gone away. Mike Peel 21:23, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Yep, it's gone now. Thanks! --Falcorian (talk) 21:59, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

FYI, the hidden text (that which you reveal by clicking "show") is doesn't display correctly for me. Or, at least, it's harder to read than the other text which appears to be approximately the same size. I'm using Firefox 2.0 and my display is set to 1280 by 1024. --GentlemanGhost (talk) 01:16, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks GentlemanGhost, I checked it with Firefox 2.0 and I see what you mean. I'll have to investigate if this is due to improper line-height handling of firefox or a bug in the template. With epiphany I have no problems though it uses the Firefox engine. {Sheliak (talk) 09:31, 4 January 2008 (UTC)}

Subsection "[show]"s look terrible. Who thinks the thing is too long with all the sections expanded? Good navbars are supposed to be long, so you can scan them for your desired subject quickly. MilesAgain (talk) 15:43, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

## CoBE vs. COBE

Is there a reason why the template lists it as CoBE yet links to COBE? The COBE article also has no instances of CoBE -- MacAddct 1984 (talkcontribs) 15:10, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

No there isn't, from NASA's website the correct spelling is COBE, so I corrected it. Thanks for your remark ! Sheliak (talk) 15:27, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

## this is categorizing incorrectly

{{editprotected}}

[[Category:Physics templates|{{PAGENAME}}]] [[Category:Astronomy templates|{paganame-1}]]

should be replaced by

[[Category:Physics templates|{{{PAGENAME}}}]] [[Category:Astronomy templates|{{{PAGENAME}}}]]

70.55.200.131 (talk) 04:32, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Done. It is `{{PAGENAME}}`, though. —Ms2ger (talk) 16:09, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

## edit request

{{editsemiprotected}} Please revert to revision http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Physical_cosmology&oldid=370505126 since both images inlcuded since then are copyright violations queued for deletion (commons:File:Cmbr2010.gif, commons:File:PLANCK FSM 03 Black.jpg). --87.79.48.243 (talk) 16:13, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Done. Thanks. Salvio ( Let's talk 'bout it!) 16:19, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

## Friedman or Friedmann?

Under Scientists there is a name Friedman and under Expanding Universe there are the Friedmann Equations. Do they intend to refer to the same person? The signature under the picture in the Friedmann Equations article doesn't seem to end in 2 ns. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.230.217.68 (talk) 02:14, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

## Dark fluid / dark flow - suggested removal

I would propose that dark fluid and dark flow be removed from the categories. While dark matter and dark energy are widely believed and discussed by hundreds of papers, the dark fluid is a somewhat speculative theory that has not been worked out in much detail. Dark flow is an observation by a single group which has been substantially disputed. Per WP:NOR and WP:Due_weight, I suggest dark fluid and flow should be removed as overly speculative. They deserve articles, but not a link in the main Physical Cosmology template. Wjs64 (talk) 00:43, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

## Edit request on 17 February 2013

I want to edit this template as i have a book in my hand having something ore about it

49.201.143.20 (talk) 16:03, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Please tell us the details of the content you want to add or change and the title and info about the book. Without specifics, we cannot make an edit for you. Vsmith (talk) 16:37, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

## Edit request on 24 April 2013

http://www.blogcdn.com/www.engadget.com/media/2013/03/planckcmblarge.jpg moew updated picture of cosmic background radiation for the universe 76.78.115.67 (talk) 17:37, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Not done: The image you suggest is not freely licensed (see ESA's Terms and conditions) and as a decorative image for this navbox, fair use would not apply. Also, as a decoration, the current CMB image serves its purpose and doesn't necessarily need to be up-to-date to do so. — Bility (talk) 22:59, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

## I wish to add a new portal to the bottom of the template - HELP

I created a new portal. It is about Cosmology: Portal:Cosmology

I tried but I can't add it to the bottom of the page right under the "Astronomy Portal". I hope you can give me a hand. Thanks Tetra quark (talk) 16:36, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

• Done (hopefully as you imagined) as part of [2]. This template uses its /doc page to display itself on its own page, so, in order to edit and preview it, the <includeonly> at its very start needs disabling (commenting-out) or removing – then, once a new version is ready, re-enabling/replacing before saving. Happy Politically Chirrectmas, Sardanaphalus (talk) 18:38, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
Thank you! Tetra quark (talk) 17:54, 26 December 2014 (UTC)