[neutralino]

In this thread I intend to compile an ongoing list of useful websites giving either tutorials, or additional details on the standard model of cosmology. These should enable everyone to be on a level footing when discussing the expansion of the universe in the standard model.

Please, feel free to add any reputable sources to the list. By reputable, I mean websites written by cosmologists, or organisations, that have information that conforms to the standard model. I do not include wikipedia in this list, for various reasons.

• Ned Wright's Cosmology Tutorial. This is a nice, compact introduction to standard cosmology, written by one of the experts in the field.
• John Baez's Physics FAQ. This is a physics FAQ, which is quite broad, but does include a lot on cosmlogy, and relativity.
• Cambridge Cosmology. This is the public website of the DAMTP in Cambridge (yes, where Stephen Hawking is!). It covers some things in relatively easy to understand language.
• NASA WMAP This gives info on the WMAP mission, along with other basic introductions to cosmology and other things. This is written for the general public.
• NASA's ask an astrophysicist. The cosmology section of the website includes other FAQ asked.
• Baez's booklist. This isn't particularly aimed at cosmology, but gives a list of different level books if anyone wants to get an insight into any particular area.
• Lineweaver article. How could I forget this one-- it's one of the best cosmology tutorials available on the web!
• This is an article in Scientific American written by the author of the above paper.

That's it for now. I'll add to it when I get time (or others can, like I said above). Enjoy!

[Profpat]

Thank you Neutralino;

Your time and effort I'm sure is appreciated by all of us.

A whole lot of homework though, so I better get on it.

Best to you,

Pat

P.S. I'm glad you decided to stay awhile.

[neutralino]

Thanks, Pat. I don't expect anyone to read all of those articles, but I thought that I'd provide a list, and people can pick or choose and see if they find anything interesting enough to read!

[Andrew]

This is huge. Thak you so much even if I don't read it any time soon.

[neutralino]

Here's a few more interesting websites I thought I'd share with you all.

• AIP: History of Cosmology. This is more of a historic article than technical, but still proves a good site to read. It's produced by the American Institute of Physics.
• Another intro cosmology tutorial. This has a brief timeline at the beginning, then launches into a short introductory tutorial into the subject. From what I've read of it, it doesn't appear to be too mathematical, and has a few pictures in it!
• Cosmology Education off Berkeley's website.
• An Exposition on Inflationary Cosmology. This one is aimed at a more advanced student.
• John Baez's Open Questions in Cosmology. John Baez's webpage is a great source of knowledge. Try out this subsection of the larger page "open problems in physics."

Enjoy!

[Profpat]

Thanks again for the references Neutralino.

Even more helpful is your brief of the sites.
I have an excellent reference source now.

BTW Lloyd is somewhat critical of Wikipedia and it appears you may be also. May I ask why?

Best to you,

Pat

[neutralino]

Thanks for your post. I'm glad you're finding the references useful!

Originally Posted by Profpat BTW Lloyd is somewhat critical of Wikipedia and it appears you may be also. May I ask why?

I'm not adverse to Wikipedia entirely, but I try and recommend people not to try and learn things off that site, for various reasons. The main problem with Wikipedia is that it can be edited at any time, and by anybody; whether they know what they're talking about or not. This sometimes means, especially for the more contraversial areas (some part of quantum physics, some general relativity and, surprisingly some higher mathematics) one doesn't know if what one is reading is entirely correct.

Another problem is that, since Wikipedia can be constantly changed, the page that someone reads and then provides a link to is not necessarily in the same form when someone comes to read the link. This could then provide problems in that, say, you may read a page I linked to, and think that I am pointing you towards a "good site," but in fact it may not be the site I intended to point you to in the first place. There is a way around this particular problem, by linking to the date version of the page, but very few people do this.

Wikipedia, in my opinion, is a good tool if used correctly; i.e. it's good to look up something you have either learnt in the past, and so would recognise once you see it again. In fact I do this almost daily. Another thing it is useful for is for some sort of trivial information that is not available elsewhere (like which public holiday falls on 7th November in mexico). However, attempting to learn something from Wikipedia can be disastrous.

[Profpat]

I think that was Lloyd's criticism also. Not a good site to learn something.

Do you know if it's peer reviewed. I thought it was, but I could be wrong. I guess being a lazy researcher, out of my field, I find it helpful, and they do have some good references at the end.

Your advice is well taken however, to use it with caution.

Thanks,

Pat

[neutralino]

Originally Posted by Profpat Do you know if it's peer reviewed. I thought it was, but I could be wrong.

No, Wikipedia is not peer reviewed: anyone with an email address can sign up and start editing. They do have moderators, but they seem to be there to stop arguments between editors rather than ensure the pages are correct. Also, there was an instance a while ago of one of the moderators stating that they had a PhD in some field, which then later unfolded to be a lie. That's one problem of online personas!

I guess being a lazy researcher, out of my field, I find it helpful, and they do have some good references at the end.

Now, using Wikipedia in that way is also good. Read through a page to see if it's interesting, and then check out the references to actually learn.

[Profpat]

Asked and answered. Thank you sir for the information.