Talk:Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Space exploration. Please work to improve this article, or visit our project page to find other ways of helping. See also our assessed articles. |
Assessment: |
| B Class | ||
| Mid Importance | ||
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
- The universe is 13.7 billion years old (to within one percent error).
- The universe is composed of 4% ordinary matter, 23% of an unknown type of dark matter, and 73% of a mysterious dark energy.
- The inflationary theory of cosmology is correct.
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)
[edit] Chris' discussion
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)
[edit] Hubble constant uncertainty
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)
[edit] Recent Article
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
