Talk:Boötes Void

Commentary
I assume the statement about the non-discovery of galaxies is 1) either a hyperbole or 2) based on the fact that there weren't in[s]truments capable of detecting/distinguishing stars from galaxies (if the nearest ones were that far away) until the 1960s XE. Also, although I'm aware the large scale structure of the local universe (an the initial anisotropy of the primordial singularity) is responsible for voids, I wonder if the new instruments such as Chandra confirm that they are in fact galaxy free. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lycurgus (talk • contribs) 23:58, May 10, 2007

Thanks
Thanks to you, conttributors, this article has now been translated into FR:. Merci à vous. Hop ! Kikuyu3 (talk) 16:11, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

added by Tim May 5th
The first external "discover magazine" link goes to spam. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.53.158.24 (talk) 11:08, 5 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Actually, it now goes to an Internet Archive page of what appears to be a digital copy of the original Discover magazine article. MichiganFarmerII (talk) 16:08, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Theories - the section is wild speculations, one of which is totally irresponsible UFO-logy
It is claimed that there are two explanations: One of which is that the existing matter "collapsed like a soap bubble". The only problem I have with that, is that you would say exactly the same thing for the rest of the filamentary structure of the Observable universe, if I understand correctly. So, either a better explanation is needed or the "explanation" is vacuous (pun intended). Explain how the well accepted gravitational collapse of matter into current filamentary Universe also explains the Great Void, or remove that explanation. The other explanation is garbage. There is no reason to believe that technology is POSSIBLE to allow some fictional/fantasy civilization to act at the scales required. Total tripe. I am changing the title of the section from "Theories" to "Explanations". If someone who is better informed of the current models could contribute, that would be excellent, I will give it my best shot, but it will be far from adequate, I'm afraid. The most relevant question I have is given the size of the observable universe, what is the probability of a void that size arising by chance (from the random initial (quantum) density fluctuations?173.189.79.117 (talk) 20:13, 10 June 2013 (UTC)


 * The soap bubble analogy is brought forward by several authors in the astrophysics field, so for me (being an amateur astronomy enthusiast), I'll accept it.
 * Here are some of the articles.[Https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/vast-cosmic-voids-merge-like-soap-bubbles/ "Vast Cosmic Voids Merge Like Soap Bubbles"]
 * However, that article is a summary of this article where the soap bubble analogy is not mentioned. "The sparkling Universe: the coherent motions of cosmic voids"
 * This topic, cosmic voids, is on the frontiers of astrophysical research; for purposes of most Wikipedia users, the best that can be done is meeting their needs by gleaning information from the likes of the Scientific American article.
 * Here's another example of the research on cosmic voids. "The phase-space structure of nearby dark matter as constrained by the SDSS". From the article: "This work discusses a fully probabilistic, chronocosmographic analysis of the Lagrangian dark matter sheet in a volume covered by the northern cap of the SDSS main galaxy sample."

MichiganFarmerII (talk) 17:45, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Discover Magazine Links (citation number 6)
Both the original article and the archive.org links are not working. Should probably be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.85.32.251 (talk) 04:30, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Pronunciation needed
not obvious how to pronounce it.WisDom-UK (talk) 23:45, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Removed "Citation needed"
Found two reliable sources for Barnard 68 object that verify the brief summary of that. May be viewed as footnotes 8 and 9. Also, there is a separate Wikipedia article already on Barnard 68 so nothing more really needs to be added on that topic from this page. Added pronunciation guide with link to Merriam Webster spoken guide. MichiganFarmerII (talk) 16:12, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Discussion of reliable sources
"Reliable sources"/ "Self-published media, where the author and publisher are the same, are usually not acceptable as sources. These can include newsletters, personal websites, press releases, patents, open wikis, personal or group blogs, and tweets. However, if an author is an established expert with a previous record of third-party publications on a topic, their self-published work may be considered reliable for that particular topic." The reference to "Cosmic Voids, Much ado about nothing" is a self-published page from an established expert; however, the page is unsigned so I feel that it fails to meet the criteria. In general, if the author of a source is unknown, it should not be referenced; in this instance there are plenty of sources that are written by authors who sign their work. The same issue arises with the page from Discovery Magazine "Filling the void - understanding the formation of the Bootes void in intergalactic space". (talk) 18:46, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Changed descriptive language
Changed vague descriptor to give dimensions from cited source, referenced Parsec page.