George Ellis corrects Leonard Susskind

[marcus]

George Ellis has found an apparent mistake in Lenny Susskind's recent book "The Cosmic Landscape" about the multitude of string theory vacua and ideas of a multiverse.

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0603266

Ellis is an interesting figure, this thread has some background and comment on a recent article Ellis wrote for an Elsevier Handbook.

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?p=911961#post911961

Ellis is co-author, with Stephen Hawking, of a well-known reference "The Large-Scale Structure of Spacetime"

Regarding Susskind, he posts the following note:

On horizons and the cosmic landscape
George F R Ellis

"Susskind claims in his recent book The Cosmic Landscape that evidence for the existence and nature of 'pocket universes' in a multiverse would be available via detailed study of the Cosmic Blackbody Background Radiation. I point out that apart from any other queries one might have about the chain of argument involved, this claim is invalid because it rests on a confusion between the nature of a particle horizon and an event horizon in cosmology."

Ellis gives this link to a passage of Susskind's book containing the questionable claim:
http://www.twbookmark.com/books/28/0316155799/chapter_excerpt22014.html

[my comment: this seems to be a decent way for the arxiv to work, no blogs or trackback mechanism needed---if you find an error, simply post a note on arxiv politely pointing it out]

 

[Evan Fox]

This is definitely an interesting find! It's great that George Ellis was able to point out this mistake in Susskind's book. It's always important to be sure to double check the accuracy of any claims made in books and articles, especially when it comes to scientific theories. I'm glad that Ellis was able to provide a link to the specific passage in Susskind's book containing the questionable claim, so that people can look into it further. Thanks for sharing this info!

 

[Entropia]

I find this exchange between George Ellis and Leonard Susskind to be a fascinating example of the process of scientific discovery and debate. It is through these types of discussions and critiques that our understanding of the universe is constantly refined and improved.

Ellis' correction of Susskind's claim highlights the importance of precision and accuracy in scientific arguments. It also serves as a reminder to always carefully examine the assumptions and logic behind a theory before accepting it as fact.

Furthermore, this exchange showcases the value of open communication and collaboration in the scientific community. By posting his note on arxiv, Ellis provides a platform for others to read and evaluate his critique, ultimately contributing to the advancement of scientific knowledge.

In the end, this exchange serves as a reminder that no theory is infallible and that the pursuit of scientific truth requires constant questioning and critical analysis.