Talk:Astroparticle physics

Advertisement?

Does anyone else get the feeling that the not-so-hidden purpose of one whole section and several other mentions in this blurb is to serve as an ad for Elsevier?

A small note might have sufficed to advise that Elsevier's journal is one of the many sources for articles on the topic.

A list of alternative sources might help inform an amateur reader with low to no familiarity with the institutions involved. Some even might be looking for where to go for research written mainly for specialists in a sub-discipline of Cosmic Ray Astronomy with doctoral-level skills in understanding advanced particle physics.

However, This latter population would seem likely to be quite small compared to technically interested, general WP readers.

So, if there is no reasons presented otherwise, I propose to edit the apposite parts of this blurb to better serve the likely much larger public: Cut back on the Elsevier ad. Put it in context.

Perhaps provide alternative expressions to those more common in Physics. (Yes, I see in research articles that the commonplaces include ergs, eVs, ... But an alternative might help those used to the Standard International metrics.)

Some of such an edit might be controversial since there's currently a war underway to cut the costs of publication by switching to free or low cost, mostly web-based channels. The technical publishing industry is pushing back: There are a hundred-thousand good-paying jobs at risk. Genteel quasi-ads, perhaps such as this blurb, could help keep jobs.

This industry until recently was virtually assured of 19% returns on investment, rapid growth of the whole industry, and the acquisition and merger of most smaller or non-profit (say, by scientific societies) publishing into a few global multi-billion dollar a year giga-corporations.

Indeed, there are larger issues at stake. For example, universities around the world produce many times as many PhDs as there are jobs requiring advanced research skills. Firms like Elsevier, besides providing a good pay-off to their owners and home-countries, are major employers, and thus supporters of the academic emprise.

I do have a conflict of interests: I'm on the Board of Editors for a peer-reviewing journal owned by a for-profit publisher of many hundreds of similar journals. On the other hand, my colleagues who have had their research support cut back, strongly complain about the costs of the current system.

GreggEdwards (talk) 05:20, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dark Matter vs Dark Energy

I am only a college student, but the treatment of dark energy and dark matter in this article seems incorrect. Dark energy and dark matter should not be grouped as a single open question: they are very different forms of mass-energy. It is erroneous to claim that "a large part of the missing dark matter is stored as dark energy." Dark energy is fundamentally different from dark matter: dark matter provides the mass density, and thus gravitational force, to account for the star and galaxy velocities mentioned in the article. Dark energy, on the other hand, explains the accelerating expansion of the universe and counteracts the effect of dark matter and ordinary matter on the observed curvature of spacetime. In general, dark matter is believed to make up 26.8% of the universe's mass-energy, while dark energy makes up a separate 68.3%. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.134.249.28 (talk) 00:24, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Astroparticle physics. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018.

regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check

}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:36, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]