Talk:Cosmic string

message: There is a new development announced in New Scientist magazine this week, declairing that the teams findings at CSL-1 are inconclusive due to atmospheric interference. However, there is hope in that they have been granted time on the Hubble Space Telescope (they previously used the European Southern Observatory's Very Large Telescope), which should give better images and allow them to conclusivly prove that the image is a result of cosmic string refraction.
If this goes ahead, there could be a conclusive result to this question sooner than expected.
astro-ph/0601494:
CSL-1 appeared to be just two similar galaxies, not a string. Should we add this?
:Is this an advertisement for New Scientist? You want to add an article talking about hopes?83.103.38.68 (talk) 09:22, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Potential Update 

message: This article is confusing. When it says "Fields", what are we as Wikipedians speaking of?
Is it Gravitational Fields or Magnetic Fields or some kind of Dark Matter - Dark Energy Field?
Perhaps it is a prairie field or baseball field. More clarity of wording would be nice.
Personally, I do not believe in this theory, but I admit I have been dead wrong before.
As far as I know, such a object cannot exist. How could it be extruded? How could it be stable?
I came here looking for an answer to my question and found no satisfactory answer.
Supercool Dude (talk) 13:50, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Confusing

message: The article mentions that a 1.6 km string might be more massive than the earth, which is clearly a direct metric conversion of an original quote, "a cosmic string, 1 mile in length, may be more massive than the earth!"  It's a hypothetical and wildly uncertain comparison, so you don't have to bother with the 6 tenths.  The offending line should be changed to "a cosmic string, about one kilometer in length, may be more massive than the Earth."  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.188.144.35 (talk) 18:08, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  '''1.6''' km string as massive as the earth?  Really?  Are you sure you don't mean a mile? 

message: Paper at http://arxiv.org/abs/1303.5085 . It seems to place some limits on what kind of strings can exist but I don't know enough physics to understand the details.Geni (talk) 21:57, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Planck data

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Cosmic string. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120415100921/http://www.geoffreylandis.com/wormholes.htp to http://www.geoffreylandis.com/wormholes.htp
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:58, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: This time in a gravitational-wave search:
https://journals.aps.org/prd/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevD.100.024017
paper has about a thousand authors mind. preprint at:
https://arxiv.org/abs/1905.03457
©Geni (talk) 02:57, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Another null result

message: I wonder if this site could work as a citation for this passage 'A cosmic string about a kilometer in length may be more massive than the Earth.'? The article mentions length density (Because of their mass (typically 10^21 kg/m),...) and has a few sources in the bibliography that might be the source of this claim. AstroChara (talk) 05:44, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gravitation - mass equivalent source