Talk:Dipole repeller

Poorly Explained
The [paper describing the 'repeller' makes it crystal clear that it does not generate a repulsive force, any more than the sky pushes us towards the earth. It's just a region of low density that has anomalously low gravitational attraction for our part of the universe. While the second part of the article explains this, it does so after declaring that the area does create a repulsive force. This is confusing for any reader not familiar with the source material. Stub Mandrel (talk) 23:34, 15 March 2017 (UTC)


 * It is a very confusing idea. The whole idea seems to be based on the authors saying, "I know it doesn't work this way, but if it did, this is what it would look like and this is what it would do". I would like to try and show that it is a model or thought experiment in some ways, but none of the articles I've found seem to find it necessary to say that, so I cannot yet source a reference to base this opinion on. Egmason (talk) 03:01, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
 * The claim that the paper (Hoffman et al, 2017) states that the repeller does not generate a repulsive force is false. For examples: "The Repeller pushes our local patch of the universe." (p.10); and, "Yet, underdense regions push as much as overdensities attract." (p.2). Again on page 5: "Describing the gravitational dynamics in co-moving coordinates, by which the expansion of the universe is factored out, underdensities apply a repulsive force and overdensities an attractive one." Also, the authors make the point on pages 6-10 that the local bulk flow is not dominated by the Shapley Cluster, but by the Repeller. 97.120.90.57 (talk) 20:01, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Describing gravity as an attractive force and the Dipole Repeller as a repulsive force is inconsistent with general relativity. The simplest and most plausible explanation for the Dipole Repeller is relaxation of the curvature of spacetime after the Milky Way galaxy has moved through it. As the mass moves, the distortion of spacetime is relieved in the region it used to occupy. This is a predictable consequence of general relativity.104.59.220.241 (talk) 23:36, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Possible Diagram
A possible diagram (a very good looking and informative one) could be extracted from the scientific paper (either the far better vector version at the Nature Astronomy-site or the lower-res pixel-version at ArXiv). But I am unsure about the copyright issues involved. I just thought I would mention it. :CalRis (talk) 08:08, 15 July 2017 (UTC)


 * I have added a simple (kindergarten simple) diagram. I hope it shows the idea well enough. I have not removed the diagram request tag, as adding one of the proper diagrams wold look much better. Egmason (talk) 02:54, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

"Represented as"
The sentence right in the beginning: "It is thought to be represented as a large supervoid, the Dipole Repeller Void." The way I read it, this implies that the supervoid is a model, and not a reality, but then "thought to be" is redundant. Suggested replacement: "It is thought to represent a large supervoid, the Dipole Repeller Void." ThatOneLooksSoSad (talk) 07:10, 18 December 2021 (EST)
 * @ThatOneLooksSoSad WP:Be bold! User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk)  21:55, 23 December 2021 (UTC)