Talk:Dark Energy Spectroscopic Instrument

Learn more about this page

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Dark Energy Spectroscopic Instrument article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Articles for creation

	This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC articles
	This article was accepted from this draft on 24 February 2016 by reviewer LoudLizard (talk · contribs).

Astronomy Mid‑importance

	Astronomy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Astronomy, which collaborates on articles related to Astronomy on Wikipedia.AstronomyWikipedia:WikiProject AstronomyTemplate:WikiProject AstronomyAstronomy articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Physics Low‑importance

	Physics portal 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.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

United States: Arizona Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Arizona portal This article is supported by WikiProject Arizona (assessed as Low-importance).

Dark Energy is Flawed or Nonexistent?

Latest comment: 6 months ago6 comments4 people in discussion

Seems recent studies suggest that Dark Energy thinking is seriously "Flawed"^[1] - or that Dark Energy doesn't even exist at all^[2]^[3] - if interested, my related pubished NYT comments may be relevant^[4] - in any case - Worth adding to the main "Dark Energy Spectroscopic Instrument" article - or Not? - Comments Welcome - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 14:40, 5 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

The DESI results, being the result of a large collaboration and presented at a significant conference are not obvious fringe results and the NYT article is clearly a notable result for the Dark Energy Spectroscopic Instrument. I think a few sentences would be great. Then in six months or a year when it turns out to be bogus I hope someone notices and cleans up.

The NYT article does not discuss the Gupta article which is not notable in my opinion. Even the author of that article says "It remains to be seen if the new model is consistent with the CMB power spectrum, the big-bang nucleosynthesis of light elements, and other critical observations." There are dozens of similar models further along. I would oppose including this content. Johnjbarton (talk) 17:11, 8 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Not include, a classic example of WP:TOOSOON (as also commented by ReyHahn). I think that new ideas/science don't just need coverage in the popular science press, they need peer validation. If there are already 20 or so arXiv papers on this then it should be included. My opinion, not everyone may agree, I had a similar disagreement recently on whether Bubble laser should be included based just upon popular science coverage without as yet peer validation. Remember that not all good science will get popular science coverage, it has to be sexy. Ldm1954 (talk) 22:47, 8 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Not include: WP:TOOSOON. The DESI paper is year-1 preliminary results of a 5 year galaxy survey; very much a primary source. Same with the Gupta paper. WP requires secondary sources (WP:PSTS). Articles in the nonscientific press like the NYT article don't qualify, they preferentially report on bleeding edge results and don't have the same notability and consensus requirements as scientific survey articles. (the NYT article doesn't even call the DESI results 'evidence', just a 'hint'). --Chetvorno^TALK 18:46, 9 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

NOTE: A related discussion has been centralized on "physics Wikiproject", and can be found at the following link => "Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics/Archive April 2024#Dark Energy is Flawed or Nonexistent?" - iac - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 22:25, 8 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

References

^ Overbye, Dennis (4 April 2024). "A Tantalizing 'Hint' That Astronomers Got Dark Energy All Wrong - Scientists may have discovered a major flaw in their understanding of that mysterious cosmic force. That could be good news for the fate of the universe". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 4 April 2024. Retrieved 5 April 2024.
^ McRae, Mike (18 March 2024). "Physicist Claims Universe Has No Dark Matter And Is 27 Billion Years Old". ScienceAlert. Archived from the original on 18 March 2024. Retrieved 5 April 2024.
^ Gupta, Rajendia P. (15 March 2024). "Testing CCC+TL Cosmology with Observed Baryon Acoustic Oscillation Features". The Astrophysical Journal. 964 (55): 55. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad1bc6.
^ Bogdan, Dennis (4 April 2024). "Comment - A Tantalizing 'Hint' That Astronomers Got Dark Energy All Wrong - Scientists may have discovered a major flaw in their understanding of that mysterious cosmic force. That could be good news for the fate of the universe". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 8 April 2024. Retrieved 8 April 2024.

Drbogdan (talk) 14:40, 5 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Add topic

[NYT-20240404do-1] Overbye, Dennis (4 April 2024). "A Tantalizing 'Hint' That Astronomers Got Dark Energy All Wrong - Scientists may have discovered a major flaw in their understanding of that mysterious cosmic force. That could be good news for the fate of the universe". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 4 April 2024. Retrieved 5 April 2024.

[SA-20240318-2] McRae, Mike (18 March 2024). "Physicist Claims Universe Has No Dark Matter And Is 27 Billion Years Old". ScienceAlert. Archived from the original on 18 March 2024. Retrieved 5 April 2024.

[ApJ-20240315-3] Gupta, Rajendia P. (15 March 2024). "Testing CCC+TL Cosmology with Observed Baryon Acoustic Oscillation Features". The Astrophysical Journal. 964 (55): 55. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad1bc6.

[NYT-20240404-4] Bogdan, Dennis (4 April 2024). "Comment - A Tantalizing 'Hint' That Astronomers Got Dark Energy All Wrong - Scientists may have discovered a major flaw in their understanding of that mysterious cosmic force. That could be good news for the fate of the universe". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 8 April 2024. Retrieved 8 April 2024.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]