Talk:Leonard Susskind

Biography: Science and Academia Start‑class

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
	This article is supported by the science and academia work group (assessed as Mid-importance).

‹See TfM›

Physics: Biographies Start‑class Mid‑importance

	Physics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Biographies Taskforce.

Leonard Susskind has written a book. The Cosmic Landscape : String Theory and the Illusion of Intelligent Design http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0316155799/104-1114441-6815119?v=glance&n=283155

The h-index is bunk. Citations are often mundane. Know it!

Heh. Spoken like someone who hasn't been cited much.

Questionable Source

Hi, I don't know the appropriate syntax for noting this directly on the page, but the URL used citation #24 is not very reputable: http://www.rinf.com/news/dec05/string.html There also does not seem to be another source given in the page that can confirm the Murray Gell-Mann elevator episode.

==

Wesley Clark's Endorsement Of Susskind's Book

Wesley Clark endorses the book? Since when has he become an authority on physics? In fact, since when is his opinion on matters of theoretical physics worth anything at all? And what does Madonna think of the book? And if it comes to political advancement being equivalent to knowledge of one sort or another, then let us recall that Lysenko's theories were endorsed by Stalin, the Corypheus of All Arts And Sciences, and Greatest Genius Of All Times And Peoples! And as Stalin was a far more successful politican AND military leader than was Clark, and more famous too - a world-historical figure in fact! - well, in light of all this, then perhaps you want to get those Lysenkoist texts out of the trash heap and begin to study them assiduously. Hi There 11:25, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wesley Clark is so hip, he has his own MySpace home page. http://www.myspace.com/securingamerica 65.95.42.64 22:59, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know that Clark could be said to have endorsed the book. He said it was interesting to read, if you check the actual reference. I doubt that it belongs in an encyclopedia entry on Susskind.

Tex 14:44, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You think he started talking about the book for no reason? 67.70.57.232 03:32, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You think he started talking about it to get into Wikipedia?

Tex 00:05, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For publicity? Absolutely. 70.48.251.229 03:25, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whether or not the mention of Clark's endorsement belongs in wikipedia, the placement of that piece of information (if it is fact true) amounts to a non-sequitor. I'd say move it or loose it.... The place to move it would be to a section on The Cosmic Landscape itself and the book's political relationship with "the illusion of intelligent design." funkendub 21:35, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's more a statement about Clark than it is about Susskind, and it belongs in Clark's article if anywhere. I think, from actually listening to the speech in question, that it was an incidental mention, and doesn't rise to the level of something that should be in an encyclopedia at all. It's not part of his political program. If he mentioned the Bible, would we find "Wesley Clark endorses Bible" in that article? And don't tell me string theory is more controversial than the Bible, that would be patently false.

Tex 22:53, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Father of String Theory

GABRIELE VENEZIANO, a theoretical physicist at CERN, was the father of string theory in the late 1960s--an accomplishment for which he received this year's Heineman Prize of the American Physical Society and the American Institute of Physics. At the time, the theory was regarded as a failure; it did not achieve its goal of explaining the atomic nucleus, and Veneziano soon shifted his attention to quantum chromodynamics, to which he made major contributions. After string theory made its comeback as a theory of gravity in the 1980s, Veneziano became one of the first physicists to apply it to black holes and cosmology.[1]

Susskind's 'father of string theory' claim is nothing but a marketing gimic associated with his book. People working in theoretical physics who know the history know there are several people more deserving of that title. Susskind's trolls or bots can keep trying to hide this all they want, but the truth will keep coming back.--GaeusOctavius 16:14, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gabriele Vaneziano's theory is a model of quark interaction not string. Susskind discovered that the euler beta function in the Vaneziano model can be viewed as the potential energy function of a vibrating string, so he suggested that 2 interacting quarks are just end-points of a single string. 65.95.41.136 01:02, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How Much Of His Work Will Be Discarded If String Theory Is Abandoned?

Pretty much what this section's title says: How much of Susskind's work and how many of his "Contributions To Physics" must be discarded and how much will be retained if String Theory is abandoned? How dependent on, and closely tied to, String Theory, is his work? Hi There 00:07, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Atheist

http://physicsweb.org/articles/review/18/12/3

But does his religion really belong in the infobox next to his academic information? It is a personal detail, and should be moved elsewhere in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kevin S. (talk • contribs) 02:07, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Someone recently changed his stance to atheist. He has said in interviews cited here that he doesn't know if there is a God or not and specifically said the string theory multiverse does not rule out a supernatural creator. The fact that he doesn't believe in intelligent design does not make him an atheist. Many religious people don't believe in intelligent design.

67.249.240.96 (talk) 05:03, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, what kind of nonsense is that intelligent design paragraph? I don't see how it warrants a special mention. should we spam pages of other scientists with their views on intelligent design, ufo's, kennedy assasination etc as well?--193.198.105.178 (talk) 13:24, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 09:58, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Banned user edits: rewrite, don't revert

Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics#Strange_edit_summaries_by_Golumbo. Text should be rewritten if relevant, not resurrected. BeforeAfteread (talk) 18:24, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]