Talk:Discovery of cosmic microwave background radiation

Astronomy: Cosmology Start‑class 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
Start	This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Cosmology task force.

‹See TfM›

Physics Start‑class Mid‑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
Start	This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

History of Science Top‑importance

	History of science portal This article is part of the History of Science WikiProject, an attempt to improve and organize the history of science content on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. You can also help with the History of Science Collaboration of the Month.History of ScienceWikipedia:WikiProject History of ScienceTemplate:WikiProject History of Sciencehistory of science articles
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Untitled

I don't agree with the merge suggestion -- Hermann deserves his own article. It just needs to be rearranged, expanded, and wikified... Ezrarez 20:36, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Should this be History of...?

Would this page be better as a history of the CMB, rather than just the discovery? By this, I mean so that it includes a discussion of the various predictions of the CMB temperature, before the discovery, then going on to discuss the major events forrowing the initial discovery - such as COBE, WMAP etc. It would be able to take content from the history section of the Cosmic microwave background radiation, which is starting to get rather long. If so, then I would suggest that the page be relocated to History of the cosmic background radiation, or possibly History of the CMB. Mike Peel 12:46, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An Earlier Qualitative Prediction

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/28b029d88793ff80?hl=en&dmode=source

Phil said: "I very much disagree that a qualitive prediction has no value. Sometimes one has to do some experiments to get the numbers to plug into equations so that he can make quantitative predictions. Consider Cavendish's experiment which result allowed one to calculate G. This particular experiment had no expected experimental outcome. It was conducted to discover something."

Jonathan said: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/f8/Milne_Model.jpg When Milne predicted "The particles near the boundary tend towards invisibility, as seen by the central observer, and fade into a continuous background of finite intensity." This has been ignored because Milne did not predict that the finite background would correspond to blackbody radiation right around 2.7 Kelvin. Hence, though he published this in 1935, it is completely left off the timeline. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.6.6.13 (talk) 14:54, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Discovery of cosmic microwave background radiation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040816231557/http://www.cr.nps.gov/history/online_books/butowsky5/astro4k.htm to http://www.cr.nps.gov/history/online_books/butowsky5/astro4k.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:05, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Shifting Bibliography to References + External links; why were the early measurements missed?

The history of science is similar to science, in that inline citations - see Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Inline_citations - are more useful for checking individual claims rather than general texts that require much more work from the reader/verifier/Wikipedian. It seems to me that most of the references presently in Bibliography should be shifted to either References when used for inline citations, or to External links if they are generally interesting for a wider context, or removed if they don't add any more evidence for the historical claims. The article at the present has a bit of the "let's tell an exciting, appealing story" aspect of popular science. But this is an encyclopedia, not a blog. :). Let the facts speak for themselves about the excitement. Boud (talk) 12:02, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Historical details of pre-Penzias-Wilson measurements and their re-discovery

What is missing, and would be interesting from the historical point of view, is evidence for or against Penzias, Wilson, Dicke, Peebles being aware of Adams/McKellar's 1941 measurement and Le Roux's 1955 measurement. The reference given in Cosmic_microwave_background#Microwave_background_radiation_predictions_and_measurements is a book by Kragh. A search in the ADS http://cdsads.u-strasbg.fr/abstract_service.html might find a specific publication by Le Roux to justify this. See the timeline on the main CMB article for details that historians should be able to analyse. Boud (talk) 12:02, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]