Talk:Hercules–Corona Borealis Great Wall

Title?????

Please give a good title for this article! I just get its name from the location in which it belongs, the constellations Hercules and Corona Borealis. Is there a fitting name for this??? Please tell me! ==Johndric Valdez (talk) 11:47, 22 November 2013 (UTC)==

It should be named after the name in the scientific paper, or a name given to it by the International Astronomical Union, however the authors of the paper do not seem to have named it, and the IAU are unlikely to. The likely courses of action are naming it from its location in the sky (as you have done), relative to another body (e.g. in the case of a moon), or after the authors of the paper, however this is WP:OR. It is interesting and we will have to wait for the IAU or a mention from the scientific press, however it may be the name you have chosen will stick.Martin451 10:37, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

"Hercules–Corona Borealis Great Wall"; if we (Wikipedia editors) coined this term, then we just did some WP:OR. "Hercules–Corona Borealis GRB overdensity" would be a descriptive term. -- 70.50.151.11 (talk) 00:44, 9 March 2014 (UTC) ITS ALL FAKE NEWS DONT READ THIS. NO IM JOKING HAHA

Larger than the visible universe's light travel distance?

According to the paper, this structure is 10 billion light-years away, and 10 billion light years in size. 10 billion + 10 billion = 20 billion light-years, which is larger than the visible universe's light travel distance of 13.798 ± 0.037 billion light-years. Even if we assume the shorter dimension, 150,000 km/s, equating to 7.2 billion light-years based on the Hubble parameter 67.80 ± 0.77 km/s/Mpc, that would be 17.2 billion light-years, still larger than the universe's light travel distance (although the comoving distance fits the observation, the Hubble volume is estimated to be 46.6 billion light-years, however, this is not the case). What is it, really? ==Johndric Valdez (talk) 07:55, 8 December 2013 (UTC)==

Horizon problem. Should it out turn out that this structure is not a chance correlation, then it would be a strong counterargument to Big Bang cosmology, at least its current flavor. It may be possible to repurpose dark matter/energy or to invent a "clumpon" field that would solve the problem. Paradoctor (talk) 17:28, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

If I told you that an object 10 ft away was 10 ft x 7 ft in size, would you automatically assume that its furthest point was at least 17 ft away? That would be quite a fallacious assumption. As is the 10+10 bly or 10+7 bly assumption above. --IO Device (talk) 10:32, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

10 billion light-travel distance but normal 10 billion big I was confused too - there is no problem with size of universe. Mithoron (talk) 15:09, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

I guess there is. Johndric Valdez and Paradoctor were right I think because the 3°K micro-wave background radiation is not that far from us and is supposed to be an image of our still unformed/unstructured universe, almost homogeneously distributed photons wich is what we believe it looked like approx 12 or 13 billion years ago.

This here, this "overdensity", if it's really 17 billion years old, then it is older than the big-bang (~13.7 billions years ago). Can't help myself but to think similar to Paradoctor: maybe the universe is simply much older than 13.7 billion years, in wich case we can keep the big-bang, the Doppler effect, the general relativity (etc) almost as they are now.

To Mithoron: good point but Johndric Valdez and Paradoctor's reasoning is still applicable even when we don't add the large size to the distance, as demonstrated. 80.215.43.88 (talk) 15:02, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Is your perspective confused? This is a 3d blob, seen in a 2d cross-section in our line of sight, it is not a flat sheet seen edge-wise 10 BLy distant with it's furthest edge another 10 BLy further away, the cross-section is perpendicular to the line of sight covering 125 degrees of the sky, a rather huge clock face hanging upon the backdrop of the night sky. WurmWoode^T 21:20, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Relation with prominent LQG's

I was studying R.G Clowes papers about prominent LQG's, and found out that four of them, Huge-LQG, CCLQG, U1.11 and U1.54 all have almost the same redshifts, about the ranges of 1.11-1.54. All are found in the region of the constellation Leo. The constellation is relatively close to Hercules and Corona Borealis, which is the location of our Her-CrB GW. What's more interesting is that their redshifts closely match to Her-CrB GW's redshift of 1.6 to 2.1. Using an algorithm, I've found out that, if these five structures are really connected with each other by hidden intergalactic filaments, would create a single superstructure with an astonishing size of 23 to 27 billion light years. Do these structures really intercorrelate with each other? ==Johndric Valdez (talk) 07:13, 29 December 2013 (UTC)==

Expansion to the "Homogeneity problem" and "Evolutionary problem"

Now, I have a confession to make, I was not really that advanced when it comes to cosmology, so I believe maybe what I've written on the last two sections can be wrong. I need additional data for it. Can someone add to it? Thank you. (Note: I will delete this once someone expands it) Johndric Valdez (talk) 22:01, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

I have improved it even more, with a much clearer explanation. Johndric Valdez (talk) 08:20, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Her-CrB SCl Complex

Our article also calls it "Hercules–Corona Borealis Supercluster Complex", but Tully shows a complex/filament/wall with this name from 1988

 3   HERCULES - CORONA BOREALIS SUPERCLUSTER COMPLEX
    3.1    Hercules Supercluster
    3.2    Bootes Supercluster
    3.3    Corona Borealis Supercluster
    3.4    Corona Borealis - Hercules Supercluster

— http://www.ligo.caltech.edu/~lazz/distribution/LSC_DataDir1/LIGOmovies/NearbyGalaxyCatalogueDefinitions.html

-- 70.50.151.11 (talk) 00:47, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

NQ2-NQ4 GRB overdensity

Is NQ2-NQ4 GRB overdensity the best title for this article? What do the sources call it? Jonathunder (talk) 16:06, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

It was done deliberately, as removing parts about its size being 'impossible', now it is just an overdensity, nothing to worry about. The fact it would disprove the whole big bang comsology is now just part of a sentence and doesn't lead to the 'biggest size possible for a structure according to our science' article. Why bother really 94.254.198.145 (talk) 18:51, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Could you elaborate, please, and explain what you mean as best you can for the layperson? Jonathunder (talk) 13:30, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Now even the finders/discoverers call it Hercules-Corona Borealis Great Wall. Shall we change back its name? Proref2 (talk) 08:24, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

The discoverers have referred to it by both its current title (Great GRB Wall) at the beginning of July, and the Hercules title two weeks later. The wording of the second is "The name of the structure has been popularized as the Hercules-Corona Borealis Great Wall, or Her-CrB GW." So it may be worth considering, but the second does not seem to be a formal title. If it is changed back, then it would be an example of wikipedia creating the title of something, WP:OR leaking into real life. Martin451 21:35, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Having a second look at the latter paper, the authors mention the Hercules-Corona Borealis Great Wall, later abbreviated to Her-CrB GW in a total of four successive paragraphs, without mention of "Great GRB Wall", so I agree with your (Proref2) that it should be moved back. Martin451 17:45, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

There is also the principle of WP:COMMONNAME (and WP:NCASTRO), which say the name used should be the most common one. The Hercules name is the one used by the popular press, and the discoverers acknowledge this (hence them using the Hercules name). Martin451 12:37, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Martin451. I tried to move the page to Hercules-Corona Borealis Great Wall, but I am not able to. Can you do it, please? Or ask an administrator. Proref2 (talk) 06:35, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

I have moved it to Hercules-Corona Borealis Great Wall from Great GRB Wall. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:59, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Thankyou. Martin451 12:37, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Source of name in article

Our article incorrectly states that Johndric Valdez invented the name "Hercules-Corona Borealis Great Wall", but as we can see from the talk above it was actually 70.50.151.11 a dynamic IP from Lasalle Quebec. There may be a slight misunderstanding from Jon Hakkila, as Johndric Valdez created the page with another name. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 02:17, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

@Graeme Bartlett: The revision history shows that the article did contain "Hercules–Corona Borealis Great Wall" at this point 8th March 2014, earlier than that IP. The first revision of the article already contains the current name. It seems to me that the page has changed names a couple of times, starting with and ending with "Hercules-Corona Borealis Great Wall". So that article may actually be correct.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:22, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

You are right; even at 11:45, 22 November 2013 internally that was the name used. I am striking my complaint. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:52, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

What is it?

Is The Hercules–Corona Borealis Great Wall a supercluster, a galaxy filament or a large quasar group?--Wyn.junior (talk) 19:48, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Late answer sorry, according to other wiki articles it's more comparable to a large quasar group, but it's even bigger than the biggest "large quasar group" namely the Huge Large Quasar Group (Huge-LQG, also called U1.27). Artist's conceptions of both structures sure look similar... 80.215.43.88 (talk) 15:21, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Are the skeptics a majority or minority of Reliable Sources?

Per WP:NPOV, if the skeptics are a majority of the reliable secondary sources (which is not easy for me to find out), then the lead and much of the article would seemingly need to be re-written to reflect this. Even the original discoverers now appear to be skeptics of sorts, based on the question mark in the title of their 2020 paper and their abstract's conclusion, including the bit that THESEUS will be needed to decide conclusively whether the structure actually exists (though our readers would not have been aware of this based on the way that paper was originally reported here). However I am neither able nor willing to work out the balance of Reliable Sources myself, so I will have to leave that to be decided by others. Tlhslobus (talk) 05:19, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

well, their stats wasn't topnotch (dismayingly, stats illiteracy reigns supreme even among the most advanced disciplines) and, while too proud or headstrong to retract the work outright, I guess they are a bit cowed and sheepish and grumble something about waiting for more decisive data (which they would should have waited for in the first place, but careers aren't launched over prudence) 2A01:CB0C:CD:D800:295A:D2A1:12E:3284 (talk) 12:22, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

It should be re-written to account for skepticism. It may not even exist. SkyFlubbler (talk) 10:07, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

"exist" is a weird term here; the cosmic web consists of density fluctuations and apparently, wherever we can find a region where the overdensity satisfies some statistical criterion (not an easy thing in itself), we allow ourselves to call it a "thing", give it a name, and so forth and so on.

This puts statistics front and centre, which has two major drawbacks - classical "significant or not" stats was designed to evaluate the strength of binary decisions, but has of course been gang pressed into (en)forcing such binary decisions, even where the nature of the question is not really that of a yes/no question (on the other hand, publications and promotions are most assuredly yes/no questions, so that's why). The other drawbacks is that almost all scientists, including astronomers, are pretty bad at stats. 2A01:CB0C:CD:D800:295A:D2A1:12E:3284 (talk) 12:29, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Yeah. I have seen that many galaxy articles on Wikipedia are bone-dry, so I expanded the articles of M51, NGC 1232 and NGC 5194 a few months ago. I was burnt out, so please, help me on this. The Space Enthusiast (talk) 17:31, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Which team, which authors, which paper?

The article cites several papers written by varying (teams of) authors. The text regularly refers to "the team", "the authors" or "the paper", while it is not always clear to which team, authors or paper this refers.  --Lambiam 17:45, 9 January 2023 (UTC)