Peer Review for Leonard Susskind

While peer review is a core part of the scientific process, it's not a guaranteed road to "success." Here is a short clip describing an early publishing experience of Leonard Susskind, a brilliant scientist who is one of the founders of String Theory. Please note that no knowledge of physics is required in order for this to make sense. It's from an old (and excellent) NOVA series by Brian Greene titled "The Elegant Universe."

[@jmcsquared18]

Hilarious that this man - who also incidentally is my idol, I learned relativity from his free Stanford lectures - is the one who solved the black hole info problem and also conjectured that entangled black holes create wormholes, fueling a new revolution in quantum gravity thinking. And him noticing string theory for the first time got a rejection. Must've been reviewer #2 that caused it.

[@sarthakgirdhar2833]

The blackhole information paradox is still an open problem.

[@justinjozokos1699]

What an ending

[@statswithcraig]

Best part of the clip 🙂

[@frun]

Later, he shall find, that the great physicist Nambu came to the same conclusion (formula is for a string).

[@quinto34]

More people should read "The Elegant Universe"..so darn interesting

[@statswithcraig]

Yeah, Greene is a great science writer

[@wulphstein]

When we asked what matter was made of, we discovered chemistry and atomic physics. Why is nobody asking what spacetime is made of?

[@hamzakhurram8912]

What is the name of this documentary?

[@statswithcraig]

It's from an old NOVA series by Brian Greene titled "The Elegant Universe." The series was based on his book of the same name. If you are interested, Brian Greene currently hosts "The World Science Festival," www.youtube.com/@WorldScienceFestival, which covers physics, astrophysics, and other areas of science. I highly recommend it.

[@JulienReszka]

lol the conclusion

[@statswithcraig]

That's why I like using it in class 🙂

[@JulienReszka]

@@statswithcraig WHat!? don't encourage your students to get drunk! 😂

[@statswithcraig]

@@JulienReszka Only after one of their papers gets rejected 😉

[@aaronrobertcattell8859]

went home got drunk 🤣😂

[@catsupchutney]

One of thew cases when I enjoy the New York City accent.

[@statswithcraig]

Susskind is phenomenal, and at least in his videos, very down-to-earth :-)

[@luislondono2072]

I took mathematical physics with Larry Spruch (I was not a good student). But I learned about “vectas”.

[@Dekoherence-ii8pw]

This is what happens when you discover a PARADIGM SHIFT. Established science is afraid of paradigm shifts. They celebrate PAST paradigm shifts. But they always resist any new paradigm shift as it arises.

[@clmasse]

It is not a paradigm shift, and that's why it doesn't work.

[@sarthakgirdhar2833]

@clmasse bro how much QFT do you know lol

[@clmasse]

@@sarthakgirdhar2833 Enough to know that it is a fraud.

[@MikeTooleK9S]

it’s like string theory is a disease of mathematical interpolation and now you can never give it up

[@bobjones5869]

you don’t even know quantum field theory and you’re commenting on string theory’s validity

[@kashu7691]

@@bobjones5869god for real

[@leojack1225]

​Politicians could reply in this way many times. You don't need to know string theory to think it is not addressing the real issues, which is the connection between the micro and the macro (how the hell a linear theory can explain turbulence for example...). Re: QFT don't you think it is suspicious a theory with a Langranfian of almost two pages... do you know the story of fitting data.. ​@@bobjones5869

[@reedwilliams1868]

Leonard SUS

[@digbysirchickentf2315]

Very sus.

[@sodakjohn]

Suspect?

[@digbysirchickentf2315]

@@sodakjohn Insane in da membrane

[@ruslantrocin108]

sat in his attic

[@APaleDot]

Turns out that panel of experts was right! String Theory turned out to be nothing but a disappointment.

[@clmasse]

What the matter? String theory is the one for which there is the greater number of published papers, most of which are crap. Pear review is not perfect, but find something more cogent.