Talk:Cosmic background radiation

"It has a very high frequency, comparable with microwaves."

High frequency as compared with what or by what standard?

---

Do cosmic rays have an bearing on genetic mutation, and thus Natural Selection?

They might. However, that has nothing whatsoever to do with the CBR. Try Cosmic rays.

---

Is there enough beef in this article to keep it separate from Cosmic microwave background radiation? --Pjacobi 21:27, 2005 Jan 23 (UTC)

No. All the radiation listed appears to be microwave anyways! –Joke 03:59, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Cosmic microwave background or paleophotons or protophotons

Etymology

• paleos + photons = old thermal radiation
• protos + photons = first thermal radiation
• archo- /archaeo- + photons [introduced by experimental physicist Giorgos Grammatikakis] = first thermal radiation — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.84.220.197 (talk) 17:11, 26 September 2015 (UTC) <!- ( mj (talk) 17:13, 26 September 2015 (UTC) )-->

rare term but used among students

proto-photons has a second meaning - it is a theoretical not yet discovered particle supposedly contributing to gravity - this is a totally separate - not connected meaning

[ask for more]

• Students may have made this up, but we need to see this used in reliable writings. I did a Google scholar search and found nothing at all. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:12, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

• I totally agree! Cosmic microwave background is easier to pronounce than protophotons or paleophotons. We must stick to the old name. Students aren't wise enough to be listened.

Students have done all kinds of valuable work on the CMB, including making major contributions to things that are mentioned in the article. They published their work in scientific journals, which are reflected in secondary sources, and Wikipedia uses those. When students try to put things they've made up directly into the article, we welcome them to Wikipedia and invite them to help build the encyclopedia (but remove the made-up stuff). If you'd like to help improve CMB articles, I'd be happy to suggest some tasks that would be really helpful. --Amble (talk) 15:21, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Most of the microwave content should be in that article with a hatnote as most readers probably want that one

This should be more like a short page with anything that's better on this general page than specific ones like neutrino background radiation. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 20:52, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Cosmic Gravitational Wave Backgound

There appears also to exist a cosmic gravitational wave background

• https://www.sciencealert.com/new-evidence-supports-a-detection-of-the-background-hum-of-the-universe
• https://scitechdaily.com/new-evidence-of-gravitational-wave-background-permeating-all-of-spacetime/
• https://academic.oup.com/mnras/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/mnras/stab3418/6503453

A notice might be placed in the article by an expert. Thanks! --Ernsts (talk) 10:56, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

This article should be deleted

This article covers the same material as cosmic microwave background and adds nothing to it. Cosmic background radiation should just forward to that. Pmokeefe (talk) 22:29, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

As I understand it, this is about a more general concept than cosmic microwave background. That is, cosmic microwave background refers to cosmic background radiation in the microwave spectrum. Other spectra are cosmic infrared background, X-ray background, and cosmic neutrino background. This is what I got from the article introduction.

I agree with the prod removal by User:A. B. Jfire (talk) 01:41, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

@Pmokeefe, I removed the PROD not because I'm sure that this article should be kept but rather that it should be discussed before any deletion. That's one of the oldest articles Wikipedia has (2001) and 114 editors before you edited it without trying to delete it.

I also agree with the distinction Jfire is making. The article even has a note at the top stating Not to be confused with cosmic microwave background or cosmic infrared background."

WP:PROD is for uncontroversial, straightforward deletion only: "PROD must only be used if no opposition to the deletion is expected." Two editors have now expressed opposition in the first 3 hours since you tagged it for deletion.

I encourage you to take this to AfD if you still wish to delete this article. If you're right about the article, it should be a simple discussion.

Thank you to both of you for caring about our physics content! --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 01:54, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

There is only one short paragraph in this article which which is not exclusively about the cosmic microwave background. That paragraph just points to other articles about different backgrounds. The cosmic microwave background article also mentions most, if not all, of those other backgrounds in Cosmic microwave background#See also, which seems perfectly adequate.

For example, the timeline section of this article only talks about the microwave background.

Also, when I took a quick look at "what links here" for this article, I either couldn't find the link, or the link almost certainly should have been directly to the microwave background article.

That being said, my apologies for prematurally placing the PROD on the main article. I misunderstood the article deletion process. Pmokeefe (talk) 20:38, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Apology not needed and not accepted, Pmokeefe!! Wikipedia is a complicated place. There are good reasons for all its rules and processes but there are a lot of them. I’m a former admin who’s been here since 2005 and I still learn new stuff, usually when somebody points out a mistake.

I’m glad you’re around looking at this stuff and caring about our content. —22:32, 11 January 2024 (UTC) A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 22:32, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Instead of deleting the entire article, how about just keeping the short paragraph with pointers to the various articles about specific backgrounds and removing the rest of the material which is specific to the microwave background? A much more complete account of the microwave background can already be found in that article, which would be prominently linked from here. Pmokeefe (talk) 20:59, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Good idea. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 14:51, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Great, I'm in the (longish) process of changing wikilinks to this article to the microwave article (when appropriate). After changing the links, I will streamline this article - if there are no objections. Pmokeefe (talk) 17:00, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! —A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 18:34, 19 January 2024 (UTC)