Talk:Planck (spacecraft)

message: I corrected the planned launch date from 2008 -> first quarter of 2007. The information was obtained from the ESA website.--Salsa man 18:53, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe a redirection of Planck satellite to this page will be necessary as some media seems to refer to it by that name. See  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.220.231.106 (talk • contribs) 
It has been delayed from the mid-April date, I believe is now public knowledge.  "A public announcement from Arianespace has been released that the 16 April launch will not be achieved", I am told.  The new date is yet to be released. Wwheaton (talk) 03:03, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: "launch"

message: Planck is now just called "Planck", or the "Planck satellite" or the "Planck mission".
Have a look at http://www.esa.int/esaSC/120398_index_0_m.html for example; "Planck Surveyor" is not used anymore.
(I work on the Planck project at ESA)
Xav71176 10:49, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I mostly see it as PLANCK in the literature.  --128.163.161.42 (talk) 14:09, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: "Surveyor"

message: I transcribed quotes from great newspaper article from an astrophysicist working on the plank project and inserted them appropriately within the aims section of the page, in clear and succinct English. I checked the JWST page first to check the style. some idiot deleted what i wrote, after i took time on it, without leaving any comments here etc. so i wrote :
[personal attack removed] has no inherent understanding of the subject matter, and rather than let this text be sullied by the quoted thoughts of an eminent astrophycist on the subject of the goals of planck, [personal attack removed]. feynmann and sagan or hawkins would never stoop to writing such a load of crap for mass consumption... look at the bloody james webb telescope page for an example of how this page will end up. [personal attack removed]. It irks me that some on this website with no inherent understanding of what they study feel themselves compelled to police web pages as if their blind reiteration of what they have read in science books makes them qualified to act as a WIKI SCIENCE PAGE EDITOR. [personal attack removed]
Thanks. good luck with your studies.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.27.217.102 (talk • contribs) 13:54, 5 March 2009
*Please do not make personal attacks against other editors. If you have a problem with the content of the article, please calmly discuss it here. --GW… 14:15, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: "Poor page editor complaint"

message: … [that Earthlings know of]. Per space.com news. My question is one that pop news never answers: How much mass is actually at that temperature? 50 kg? 50 µg? I'm guessing more like the latter, but I don't know. — ¾-10 03:12, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: News report of 2009-07 says Planck contains coldest spot in universe beyond Earth

message: Here is some new information on the spacecraft:
*http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/60903/description/The_universe_according_to_Planck
*http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Planck_All_Sky_Image_Depicts_Galactic_Mist_Over_The_Cosmic_Background_999.html
Andrew Colvin • Talk 04:38, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The best source for this is the original press release from ESA: http://www.esa.int/esaCP/SEMF2FRZ5BG_index_0.html Mike Peel (talk) 07:24, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  New news 

message: So today on Engadget there was a post that the Planck had taken a picture of "the whole universe."
Should this be mentioned (if it is indeed true)? If so, an explanation of how this picture represents "the whole universe" should go along with it. I won't pretend to understand the sciences involved.Scryer_360 (talk) 17:13, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture of the Universe? 

message: Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://sci.esa.int/science-e/www/object/index.cfm?fobjectid=34730&fbodylongid=1595. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you.  Dana boomer (talk) 15:13, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright problem removed 

message: Will it continue to collect data ?  How long does it have fuel to stay at L2 ?  Will it be sent to another heliocentric orbit like Herchel ? - Rod57 (talk) 03:36, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is planned after March 2013 

message: After reading the section called "Confirmation of "Axis of Evil", Anisotropy, and Alignment of Anisotropies to Ecliptic/Equinoxes from WMAP and COBE", I'm going to remove it.  The claims within the section (confirmation of an "axis of evil", challenging the Cosmological Principle, indications of non-Gaussianity, challenging of the Big Bang, inflationary, etc. models and the Copernican principle) appear to be unsupported by the sources cited.  One source (judging by the references to the LHC still being a year away from opening when it opened in 2012) appears to predate the 2013 findings (and naturally doesn't mention the Planck findings) and is thus useless for this section, and the other two sources, particularly the one from Caltech, do not appear to support the claims; the Caltech paper says in its conclusions: "We have demonstrated that little evidence is seen for non-Gaussianity, although some deviations from isotropy are found." The other article quoted says: "Beyond the anomalies, however, the Planck data conform spectacularly well to the expectations of a rather simple model of the Universe" and "We see an almost perfect fit to the standard model of cosmology, but with intriguing features that force us to rethink some of our basic assumptions."  It seems that these observations are not realy as earth-shattering as the section as written would lead us to believe.  I'm a little out of my depth here, so I'm not going to attempt to rewrite the section myself, but perhaps someone with more background knowledge than I could write a section if one is warranted. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 20:03, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, nevermind, the subsection above it already summarizes the findings. Probably fine as it is, then. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 20:05, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

text: Right, but the point is that those are specific anomalies, and other than those anomalies, there is little evidence for non-Gaussianity, as the passage states.  So I think it might be a little bit cherry-picking of the source to use that in support of all the things you're claiming. Like I said: there's already a DRN discussion about this content; I'd suggest we let that discussion play out and then use the results of that to decide about adding the content here. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:35, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

text: Also, given that none of your sources discuss the Copernican Principle or the "axis of evil"; using them to support your statements about such are pretty clearly synthesis, which is contrary to policy. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:44, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The specific anomalies are at the largest angles, which means they are by far the most important. Were the anomalies at the last 4 multipoles, for instance (say 1996-2000), it would probably not amount to much. The reason cosmologists are concerned about the large scale anomalies, is because it does present a major issue for the standard model, and Planck was looked to to referee the anomalies found in WMAP, and in fact served that purpose. That is why we are seeing articles in New Scientist like "Planck shows almost perfect cosmos – plus axis of evil". This is being recognized, and Planck is the key to all of this, so please do not try and take this observation away from Planck. If you want to work on the edit constructively, please join in. Clearly the large scale observations are actually "features" now, no longer "anomalies".72.46.228.155 (talk) 20:58, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

text: I think that the anomalies or features should definitely be mentioned. They are big news and Planck confirmed them. --Timtak (talk) 21:09, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removing/reworking latest section 

message: We should work into article
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1304.2785v1.pdf
Inflationary paradigm in trouble after Planck2013
Anna Ijjas, Paul J. Steinhardt, Abraham Loeb
Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, Cambridge,
MA 02138, USA
University Observatory Munich, 81679 Munich, Germany
Department of Physics, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ 08544, USA
Princeton Center for Theoretical Science, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ 08544 USA
Abstract
The recent Planck satellite combined with earlier results eliminate a wide spectrum of more complex inflationary models and favor models with a single scalar field, as reported in the analysis of the collaboration. More important, though, is that all the simplest inflaton models are disfavored by the data while the surviving models – namely, those with plateau-like potentials – are problematic.
We discuss how the restriction to plateau-like models leads to three independent problems: it exacerbates both the initial conditions problem and the multiverse-unpredictability problem and it creates a new difficulty which we call the inflationary “unlikeliness problem.” Finally, we comment on problems reconciling inflation with a standard model Higgs, as suggested by recent LHC results. In sum, we find that recent experimental data disfavors all the best-motivated inflationary scenarios and introduces new,serious difficulties that cut to the core of the inflationary paradigm. Forthcoming searches for B-modes, non-Gaussianity and new particles should be decisive.Wyattmj (talk) 23:47, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: New, Interesting Article Focuses on the Great Results from Planck

message: A new table display (parameters are now horizontal) was added - this seems to fit the article page better - the old original display (parameters are vertical) remains at the moment but is remmed-out (in case one needs to compare the two versions - or revert - for some reason) - both displays are presented below for comparison - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 15:38, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Very nice Doc, after seeing the new additions last night I'd thought this might look better, but decided to work on it today, lol. — Huntster (t @ c) 21:22, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for your comments - they're *greatly* appreciated - the effort was fun - thanks again - and - enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 22:03, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Table Display Better? 

message: The table's very easy on the eyes, but still not easy to read. Could we have a bit of description below the table? Perhaps an explanation as to what Best fit, 68% limits, lensing, WP, HighL and BAO mean, and which row is most accurate, so to speak. Thanks. nagualdesign (talk) 22:41, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Table caption 

message: The article on the Poincaré homology sphere references data from WMAP that there was very low power for angular correlations greater than 60 degrees, and that this could possibly be explained by the universe having the shape of a Poincare sphere. The hypothesis dates back to 2003 and is presented here: physics world article there's a ref to a 2003 article in Nature, too -- so the question is -- its now 13 years later, does data from Planck confirm or deny this hypothesis, or leave it unchanged?  Could an expert add the required 1-2 sentences to the homology sphere article to update that status? 67.198.37.16 (talk) 20:03, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm. I'm now plowing through this: physics forums discussions. 67.198.37.16 (talk) 20:09, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Never mind. The final post in that thread seems to summarize the situation. 67.198.37.16 (talk) 20:23, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Poincare sphere 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Planck (spacecraft). 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/20121007212449/http://www.sciops.esa.int/index.php?project=planck&page=Planck_Legacy_Archive to http://www.sciops.esa.int/index.php?project=planck&page=Planck_Legacy_Archive
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130323234553/http://www.sciops.esa.int/index.php?project=PLANCK&page=Planck_Published_Papers to http://www.sciops.esa.int/index.php?project=PLANCK&page=Planck_Published_Papers
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:25, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 2018 and final data release is here here. If someone has time to update the article, please go ahead. 195.235.239.100 (talk) 11:14, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  2018 data release 

message: We are past March 2018...
: "The final papers by the Planck team are expected to be released in March 2018."
--Mortense (talk) 10:06, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  2018-03 date