Talk:Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe

Source on revised imagery for quadrupole correction?

"After corrections all that remains is a nearly featureless surface and hence much less information than originally published." 71.199.2.101 (talk) 03:38, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Notes

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.

(Note: The first and last of the three points above are not proven.) Imahd (talk) 00:52, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

For the NASA's February 11, 2000 press release go here

• http://www.gsfc.nasa.gov/topstory/2003/0206mapresults.html

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)

• I'm new to Wikipedia, but the inequality "0.0179 < Ωk <0.0081 (95%CL)" doesn't make any sense. Perhaps there is a missing minus sign or one the inequalities is reversed. I'm not a Wikipedia member, so I won't change it.

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)

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)

I did the same with the new data from "Five-Year Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) Observations: Data Processing, Sky Maps, and Basic Results[1] "

Values for h are given instead of H. Consequently, the values for H are off by a factor of 100. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.197.241.124 (talk) 18:31, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

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

Lagrange Discussion

It seems to me that the discussion on the Earth-Sun L2 point is rather extraneous and long. I suggest trimming it down to just a couple sentences. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Phædrus (talk • contribs) 18:22, 8 April 2007 (UTC).

Fine, I did it myself, though it may be somewhat sub-par. Phædrus 02:46, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Hubble constant

With this edit the value reported in the article was changed. Although no reference is cited for this I have applied WP:AGF and left the change in place, pending discussion. Can either value (old or new) be supported by a reliable source? (sdsds - talk) 03:27, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Is WMAP a "satellite"?

It seems that WMAP, while it is a "space probe" and a "spacecraft", is not technically a "satellite" and the NASA WMAP site does not use this term. The historical definition of a satellite is a small secondary object whose motion around a much more massive primary object is described as an ellipse and whose position is predicted by Keplerian elements. NASA is relatively consistent in confining the word "satellite" to spacecraft whose primary mission is conducted from a stable Earth orbit. For spacecraft orbiting other objects, "satellite" is qualified with the name of the primary body (i.e. Martian satellite). Spacecraft in solar orbit or in undefined trajectories are usually not referred to as "satellites". So the COROT mission spacecraft in a polar Earth orbit is a "satellite" and the Kepler mission spacecraft in an Earth trailing solar orbit is not. The Lissajous path traced by WMAP at L2 is not a classic "orbit" as WMAP is not gravitationally bound to that point and would wander away without active control. Am I wrong about any of this? Aldebaran66 (talk) 07:31, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Some basic 7 year data release information added. Some interesting anomolous results which the team haven't found an answer to yet. Even more interesting, it seems the only theory which predicts those results, the DFM, is well covered herein. Does anyone dare tell them they should include Wiki in their research sources??!Docjudith (talk) 16:52, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100604044215/http://www.shawprize.org:80/en/shawprize2010/announcement/announcement.html to http://www.shawprize.org/en/shawprize2010/announcement/announcement.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:18, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20051127035127/http://www.space.com:80/scienceastronomy/map_mission_basics_030211.html to http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/map_mission_basics_030211.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:30, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

External link is dead

New Scientist link "Big Bang glow hints at funnel-shaped Universe, New Scientist, April 15, 2004" goes to a 404 page. 82.132.226.70 (talk) 19:58, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Map coordinates

Is this image galactic coordinates? File:WMAP 2012.png I can't confirm. Ones like this certainly are. File:WMAP_2008_33GHz_foregrounds.png Tom Ruen (talk) 07:53, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

NASA's WMAP data superseded by European Space Agency's Plank satellite data.

The precision of the figures given (72.8% dark energy and 22.7% dark matter) is slightly off. Based on the latest data from the Planck satellite (2013), the universe is approximately 68.3% dark energy, 26.8% dark matter, and 4.9% ordinary matter.

• https://sci.esa.int/web/planck/-/51557-planck-new-cosmic-recipe
• https://sci.esa.int/web/planck/-/33333-summary

While this article is about WMAP, superseded data should be noted in the article so readers have accurate information. 47.176.71.114 (talk) 19:55, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Was vs. Is

As soon as the Lede says it "was", I immediately wonder what happened to it, then later in the Article it says the probe "was" derelict, which to me means IS derelict, meaning it's SOMEWHERE. Don't understand any of the science, but I do know that the chunk of metal either is or was somewhere, and for us dummies I think the Article could be more specific about it's life and death, particularly with regard to the word "is", or "was". I assume it IS because I don't read that it crashed or burned up, so it IS out there somewhere, and still exists, even if it's run out of power, or whatever. The science is all nice and stuff, but tell me more about the actual THING, what IS it's status, where IS it, when did it stop working and why, etc...2603:8081:3A00:30DF:C892:CBAA:35B4:1391 (talk) 01:11, 14 March 2024 (UTC)