Comments on: Hubble Weighs In: CSL-1 Not a Cosmic String

By: Thoughts on science and life » Blog Archive » CSL-1: The End of Cosmic Strings?

Tue, 17 Jan 2006 18:19:30 +0000

[...] The CLS-1 has also been discussed by Lubos Motl, by Peter Woit (as mentioned above) and at Cosmic Variance. [...]

By: Lubos Motl

Lubos Motl — Fri, 13 Jan 2006 13:08:37 +0000

Dear Count Iblis,

I still don’t like it. Moreover, we have a new argument against it. The correct figure for the probability that CSL-1 was a cosmic string lensing was 0%.

Best
LM

By: amanda

amanda — Fri, 13 Jan 2006 12:10:06 +0000

“Did anyone really think in his or her heart that this was a cosmic string? Honestly? Come on.”

I put this question to a few people. The answers were depressingly similar. They were all variants on, “No, I didn’t, because I no longer expect anything to work these days.” An extension of the attitude most people have to everything on hep-th these days……

By: Count Iblis

Count Iblis — Fri, 13 Jan 2006 01:27:57 +0000

Hi Lubos,

I thought that you didn’t like Bayesian reasoning.

By: Slacrates

Slacrates — Thu, 12 Jan 2006 23:06:43 +0000

Imagine the comments at ‘Not Even Wrong’ if it turned out to be a probable cosmic string. Richard Hoagland would add it to his repetoire of conspiracies.

By: Not Even Wrong » Blog Archive » The First Evidence For String Theory? Not.

Thu, 12 Jan 2006 22:05:51 +0000

[...] The New Scientist story was about an astronomical object optimistically given the name “CSL-1″ (for Capodimonte-Sternberg-Lens candidate), that supposedly might be a galaxy lensed by a cosmic string, causing it to appear doubled. Of course the much less exotic and much more likely possibility was always that it was just two similar looking neighboring galaxies. Recently the Hubble space telescope was used to take a closer look at CSL-1, and as reported here and here the Hubble image clearly shows that it’s not a cosmic string, just two nearby galaxies. [...]

By: Lubos Motl

Lubos Motl — Thu, 12 Jan 2006 21:10:49 +0000

Joe was saying that the probability it was a cosmic string – or similar accessible incident would reveal a cosmic string – was around 10%. I still agree that there was a significant enough chance.

Dear Dissident, when I said “bottom”, I did not mean a complete bottom.

By: Dissident

Dissident — Thu, 12 Jan 2006 20:54:21 +0000

#10: Ahem, not to spoil your fun or anything Lubos, but what I see at the bottom of that page is a Google ad for “The Final Theory”, claiming to be “The bestselling book our scientists hope you never read” and an invitation to “Find out why!”…

By: Lubos Motl

Lubos Motl — Thu, 12 Jan 2006 20:49:15 +0000

If you want to see the picture from the Korean Space Telescope Hwang Woo-Suk that proves that there is a cosmic string , see the bottom of

http://motls.blogspot.com/2006/01/csl-1-is-not-cosmic-string.html

By: Peter Woit's Bastard Child

Peter Woit's Bastard Child — Thu, 12 Jan 2006 20:41:46 +0000

Did anyone really think in his or her heart that this was a cosmic string? Honestly? Come on.