Talk:Dark Energy Spectroscopic Instrument

Dark Energy is Flawed or Nonexistent?
Seems recent studies suggest that Dark Energy thinking is seriously "Flawed" - or that Dark Energy doesn't even exist at all - if interested, my related pubished NYT comments may be relevant - in any case - Worth adding to the main "Dark Energy Spectroscopic Instrument" article - or Not? - Comments Welcome - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 14:40, 5 April 2024 (UTC)


 * The DESI results, being the result of a large collaboration and presented at a significant conference are not obvious fringe results and the NYT article is clearly a notable result for the Dark Energy Spectroscopic Instrument. I think a few sentences would be great. Then in six months or a year when it turns out to be bogus I hope someone notices and cleans up.
 * The NYT article does not discuss the Gupta article which is not notable in my opinion. Even the author of that article says "It remains to be seen if the new model is consistent with the CMB power spectrum, the big-bang nucleosynthesis of light elements, and other critical observations." There are dozens of similar models further along. I would oppose including this content. Johnjbarton (talk) 17:11, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Not include, a classic example of WP:TOOSOON (as also commented by ReyHahn). I think that new ideas/science don't just need coverage in the popular science press, they need peer validation. If there are already 20 or so arXiv papers on this then it should be included. My opinion, not everyone may agree, I had a similar disagreement recently on whether Bubble laser should be included based just upon popular science coverage without as yet peer validation. Remember that not all good science will get popular science coverage, it has to be sexy. Ldm1954 (talk) 22:47, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Not include: WP:TOOSOON. The DESI paper is year-1 preliminary results of a 5 year galaxy survey; very much a primary source. Same with the Gupta paper. WP requires secondary sources (WP:PSTS). Articles in the nonscientific press like the NYT article don't qualify, they preferentially report on bleeding edge results and don't have the same notability and consensus requirements as scientific survey articles. (the NYT article doesn't even call the DESI results 'evidence', just a 'hint'). --ChetvornoTALK 18:46, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

NOTE: A related discussion has been centralized on "physics Wikiproject", and can be found at the following link => "Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics/Archive April 2024" - iac - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 22:25, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Drbogdan (talk) 14:40, 5 April 2024 (UTC)