## Wednesday, May 25, 2005

### Lenny's book

According to "amazon.com", Lenny Susskind's popular book will be called

Lenny has already used this title for several talks. I won't comment on the summary of the book, but it is very provocative:

• The beginning of the 21st Century is a watershed in modern science, a time that will forever change our understanding of the universe, Leonard Susskind, the father of string theory, contends. With this theory, he inspired a generation of physicists who believe that this theory would uniquely predict the physical properties of our universe. Now, decades later, Susskind is revising his theory, saying that it no longer suits our understanding of the universe. In this book he raises the possibility that the Laws of Physics as we know them today are determined by the requirement that intelligent life is possible. In other words, our universe exists because we are here to observe it. THE COSMIC LANDSCAPE will be a paradigm shifting answer to Brian Greene’s bestselling The Elegant Universe.

1. hello, dear all who know better

can i get educated on who was/were the father/fathers of string theory/theories?

the string theory textbooks are not very clear on this point. the only father i know of is veneziano? and also schwarz and green, maybe scherk too?

thanks a lot to all for finally clarifying the born identity.

2. gig,

You must watch the PBS version of, "the elegant universe," for more clarity here on this matter.

It will detail Lenny's contribution much closer.

3. In this book he raises the possibility that the Laws of Physics as we know them today are determined by the requirement that intelligent life is possible.

Conceptually, such paradigmal changes in model appreciation will have suited some fine?:)

Just as one would ask, do you believe it is possible that vision can be altered in this attempt?

The cohesiveness of this approach is suttle, and consistant from the point of view, that what is cosmological significant, is related to particle reductionsism, having reached it's limitations, or forced limitations.:)

Your reference Lubos to Steven Gidding and microstate blackhole production, is a case in point.

Understanding this, the point circle topolgically defined make it hard to determine which lines the torus reveal inner/outer perspective(Sklar), "yet we understand well, perspective on circles becoming torus's," from definition of "points on branes?"

So we are looking for "this motivator" to cosmological expansionism and it's beginning?

It had to be cyclical, and if this was the case, it had to always exist in one form or fashion.

This has been derived from a gravitational perspective?:)

4. F Odor said:
"By the way, I see that LS has a new paper out today, hep-th/0505232

They claim bla bla bla, which ends in a Big Crunch. What's going on here?"

What is going on is there is an anthropic principle here. It's all because of you and blame on you, F Odor, that LS published that big crunch paper. Because if he doesn't publish the paper, you would not be here commenting on it. Actually if the univerve doesn't happen to be so extremely fine tuned in such an incredible way which allowed for the birth and existence of LS, we wouldn't be today talking about that guy. So the correct causal relationship is what happened is the cause of how it all started.

At least that's how anthropic principle works :-)

Quantoken