I have color-coded pro-El Naschie material green to make it easier to find. In the comment sections, the commenter's name appears

*below*each comment. Someday maybe I'll fix the spacing and color coding to make it clearer.

For background, you may want to read the following posts in conjunction with this one: 1. Did Baez and Distler succumb to legal threats? 2. My phone call with John Baez 3. My emails with John Baez 4. John Baez: calm, firm, unafraid, hard-knuckled.

If you enjoy this archive and want to read others, see Catalog of El Naschie Watch Archives.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

- Part 1 The Case of M. S. El Naschie
- Comments on part 1
- Part 2 The Case of M. S. El Naschie, Continued
- Comments on part 2
- Part 3 The Kind of Email I Don’t Need
- Comments on part 3

**Part 1 The Case of M. S. El Naschie**

Zoran Škoda recently brought our attention to the case of M. S. El Naschie.

El Naschie is editor in chief of the journal Chaos, Solitons and Fractals. This journal is published by Elsevier, one of the biggest players in the science publishing business.

But here’s where things get interesting: this journal also lists 322 papers with El Naschie as an author!

For example, El Naschie has five sole-authored papers in the most recent issue, which will appear in December. Here they are:

M.S. El Naschie, Fuzzy multi-instanton knots in the fabric of space–time and Dirac’s vacuum fluctuation, Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, Volume 38, Issue 5, December 2008, Pages 1260-1268.

M.S. El Naschie, An energy balance Eigenvalue equation for determining super strings dimensional hierarchy and coupling constants, Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, Volume 38, Issue 5, December 2008, Pages 1283-1285.

M.S. El Naschie, Anomalies free E-infinity from von Neumann’s continuous geometry Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, Volume 38, Issue 5, December 2008, Pages 1318-1322.

M.S. El Naschie, Eliminating gauge anomalies via a “point-less” fractal Yang–Mills theory, Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, Volume 38, Issue 5, December 2008, Pages 1332-1335.

M.S. El Naschie, Fuzzy knot theory interpretation of Yang–Mills instantons and Witten’s 5-Brane model, Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, Volume 38, Issue 5, December 2008, Pages 1349-1354.

Together with the rate at which El Naschie is publishing these papers in his own journal, the bizarre blend of fashionable buzzwords in their titles instantly made me suspicious. To see if my suspicions were correct, I examined some.

Let’s look at just one: ‘Anomalies free E-infinity from von Neumann’s continuous geometry’.

This paper consists of undisciplined numerology larded with impressive buzzwords. It starts with a reference to von Neumann’s continuous geometries and the work of Alain Connes, but it makes no use of these ideas. ‘E-infinity’ is apparently the name of Naschie’s ‘theory’, but he doesn’t describe this theory. In short, the title and abstract have little to do with the actual content of the paper.

As for the content, let me quote a bit, so you can see for yourself:

It may be a rather well known fact, at least for all round educated mathematicians, that there are 17 and only 17 distinct types of wallpaper patterns in terms of their symmetry groups. Many of these patterns were known and used by the Arabs in Spain to decorate their palaces, for example the world famous Alhambra in Spain [9,10]. Less well known however is the fact that there are 5 Dirichlet domains corresponding to these 17 groups and that there are exactly 17 two and three Stein spaces with a total sum of dimensions found by the Author to be exactly equal to [14]:

5 a˜ 0 +1 =(5 )(137 )+1 =685 +1 =686

where a˜ 0 is the integer value of the inverse of the fine structure constant of electromagnetism. In Fig. 1 we show examples of wallpaper patterns corresponding to the said 17 groups while in Fig. 2 we show the corresponding Dirichlet domain [10].

It is well known that without symmetry groups, in particular SU(3), SU(2) and U(1) Lie groups, we could not formulate a rational standard model for particle physics, but what could be the connection between the wallpaper groups and high energy physics? Part of the answer to this question has already been given implicitly in the identity [11]

? 1 17 Stein=(4 a˜ 0 )+1 =685 +1

To follow this matter deeper still, we have to recall some topological and mathematical facts. First, the Nash Euclidean embedding of a two dimensional manifold, i.e. an area is given for n=2 by [4]

DE=n2 (3 n+11 )=((3 )(2 )+11 )=17

Next we think about each area as being a Bi-vector with 17 dimensions attached to them. However this two dimensional tiling should be thought of more as a Penrose fractal tiling which we can divide again into smaller areas with again 17 dimensions attached to them and so on. The remarkable thing is that for two such fractal iterations, one finds

(2 )(2 )(17 )=(2 )(34 )=68 =(a˜ 0 /2 )-1 /2 =1 /2 (a˜ 0 =1 ).

In fact (68)(8) = 544 is short of the four dimensions of classical spacetime to give us the total sum of exceptional Lie symmetry groups hierarchy [11,12].

To me it’s clear that this is total baloney. Let me explain a bit:

I know there are 17 wallpaper groups, and that many of patterns with these symmetry groups appear in the Alhambra. In fact last summer I went to the Alhambra and checked this myself! But I don’t know if there are “exactly 17 two and three Stein spaces’” with total sum of dimensions equal to 686 — I know what a Stein space is, but I don’t know what “two and three Stein spaces” are, or if that even makes sense. The reference he gives here is to one of his own papers in the same journal, ‘Kac–Moody exceptional E12 from simplictic tiling’. I know that ‘simplictic’ is not a word.

More importantly, even if some calculation leads to the number 686, he gives no indication of why it might be interesting that

686 =5 ×137 +1

where 137 is the nearest integer to the reciprocal of the fine structure constant (which is actually closer to 137.035999).

Instead of attempting to explain this numerical coincidence, he moves on. First he claims that

686 =4 ×137 +1

but let us hope this is a typo.

Then he hints that the Nash embedding theorem says that any n-dimensional Riemannian manifold can be embedded in a Euclidean space of dimension

n2 (3 n+11 )

The Nash embedding theorem does give a bound of roughly this sort, but I don’t know if this particular formula is correct. Regardless of that, he then applies the formula to the case of a surface (n=2 ) and gets the number 17 . I have no reason to believe that 17 is the optimal bound in this special case, or of any special significance, but anyway: he seems to be claiming the reappearance of the number 17 is important here — but without saying how.

Then he really goes wild:

Next we think about each area as being a Bi-vector with 17 dimensions attached to them. However this two dimensional tiling should be thought of more as a Penrose fractal tiling which we can divide again into smaller areas with again 17 dimensions attached to them and so on.

This is vague, dreamlike imagery. A bivector is a mathematical structure related to area, but imagining a 2d surface as a bivector with “17 dimensions attached to it” means nothing, nor does the idea of iterating this to get a “Penrose fractal tiling”.

He then suggests quitting at the second stage of this iteration and getting

2 ×2 ×17 =68

of something — but it’s not clear what, nor why the number 2 ×2 ×17 should show up.

But never mind! He then notes that 68 is 1 /2 (137 -1 ), where again 137 is a rough approximation to the reciprocal of the fine structure constant. Of course, can always find some formula linking any two numbers, and the possible meaning of this formula linking the numbers 137 and 68 is not discussed.

He then takes the number 68, multiplies it by 8 for some undisclosed reason, and getting 544, which is “four short” of some other number: the “total sum of exceptional Lie symmetry groups hierarchy”, whatever that means. Presumably he calculated some number for each of the 5 exceptional Lie groups, added them up, and got 548: he cites two of his own papers published in the same journal for this calculation! Coming up with a number “four short” of another number might not seen very impressive, but he ‘saves the day’ by pointing out that 4 is the number of dimensions of spacetime. And if it were 3 short, doubtless that would be the number of dimensions of space.

In short: this paper is even less sophisticated than what the Bogdanoff brothers wrote. And all the other papers I’ve read by El Naschie are of a similar quality.

Now, I get crud like this in my email every day. I delete it without comment. What makes this case different is that El Naschie gets to publish these papers in a superficially respectable journal that he actually edits.

The fact that Elsevier would let Naschie edit this journal and publish large numbers of papers like this in it shows that their system for monitoring the quality of their journals is broken.

The fact that this journal costs $4520 per year would be hilarious, except that libraries are actually buying it — at a reduced rate, bundled in with other Elsevier journals, but still!

This case raises plenty of other questions:

Why did Elsevier let El Naschie become the editor in chief of this journal?

Who is El Naschie? What’s his connection with getCited?

Why does he have such adoring fans? -people who say things like:

“Our Chinese Scientists on Nonlinear Dynamics are in infinite love and admiration to both the man and his science. El Naschie actually built a bridge between high-energy particle physics on the one side and nonlinear dynamics, complex theory, chaos, and fractals on the other, and he benefits tremendously from cross-fertilization. Treading the path of El Naschie, we gather together to celebrate the century’s greatest scientist after Newton and Einstein, and share his greatest achievement.”

Why is he also an editor for International Journal of Nonlinear Sciences and Numerical Simulation, and why does this journal flaunt its high ‘impact factor’?

If you want a different angle on Naschie’s ideas, try his video on Youtube.

Posted at November 9, 2008 4:43 AM UTC

**Comments on part 1**

129 Comments & 5 Trackbacks

Re: The Case of M. S. El Naschie

Having come here from Zoran Skoda’s comments in the other thread, and having had a brush with some of El-Naschie’s, erm, “theories”, albeit second-hand and perhaps with me misunderstanding a great man, I’m almost relieved to see that what you quoted doesn’t involve the golden ratio. I seem to recall (being told that) some combination of powers of the GR is close to 26, and hence evidence that 26-dimensional physical theories need some fractal correction.

Then there’s also something about how the Banach-Tarski paradox might be relevant to quantum cosmology. (Again, I am going from memory here, so perhaps I’m traducing the insight of the original, but somehow I think not…)

Posted by: yemon choi on November 9, 2008 5:32 AM

Re: The Case of M. S. El Naschie

Well, 26 = ?6 + ?4 + ?0 + ?-4 + ?-6, and in general any integer can be written as a sum of powers of ?. But this representation doesn’t even seem particularly nice. I could at least see where the numerologist was coming from if, say, there were physical theories calling for 29 dimensions, since ?7 = 29.03444176 is very close to 29. (In fact, all integer powers of ? are close to integers; this is because (?)n + (-?)-n is the nth Lucas number.)

A question that occurs to me: I think anybody with any mathematical training would agree that a dimension being near a power of ? is not something worth investigating. How do we know which coincidences are worth looking at and which are not?

Posted by: Michael Lugo on November 11, 2008 3:10 PM

Re: The Case of M. S. El Naschie

Hmm, thanks for the reminder re Z[?]. I seem to recall the speaker not producing 26 on the nose (which would have prompted me to think a bit more about algebraic numbers and combinations thereof).

The point about the Lucas numbers is cute, it rings a bell somewhere at the back of the mind.

I think anybody with any mathematical training would agree that a dimension being near a power of ? is not something worth investigating. How do we know which coincidences are worth looking at and which are not?

Good question, and the best I can do is shrug and give a non-answer: “it depends”. Perhaps it’s also to do with structure, and what I saw described (in the context of proving inequalities) “stress testing” – so for instance, which other algebraic numbers have the properties you describe above? Is ? extremal in any sense? Is this connected to its extremal behaviour as a continued fraction? These are all semi-rhetorical questions, but that’s how I personally would react. Whereas trying to link ? to -163, say, wouldn’t seem natural to me, though I wouldn’t rule it out…

Off the top of my head: it may also have something to do with how much of the objects you seek to link is being used. F’rinstance, down thread I see that there is an alleged link between the two-slit experiment, Cantor sets, and K3 manifolds. Now I’d hope that someone with mathematical training would go: in this story, what is so special about K3? why should a homological/Hodge condition link up to the construction of certain Hausdorf dimensions? Could we replace these objects by others in the relevant categories, and still get a pretty coincidence of numbers?

Posted by: yemon choi on November 11, 2008 8:29 PM

Re: The Case of M. S. El Naschie

Having done some digging amongst the links that John provided, I actually found one of el Naschie’s “notes” gives an actual piece of motivation/context for the fetishization of f which seems common to the later, erm, work.

The key reference, apaprently, is

MR0831202 (87j:60027)

D. R. Mauldin, S. C. Williams

Random recursive constructions: asymptotic geometric and topological properties.

Trans AMS 295:1 (1986) 325–346

which I thought might interest Michael and some others.

According to el Naschie, one of the results of this paper is that a random Cantor set has Hausdorff dimension equal to f, but he doesn’t give a specific reference. Leaving aside words like “almost surely”, to be charitable, I’ve had a quick look through the paper to find the relevant result. The closest I can find is Example 4.4, where in the middle of several other examples of Cantor/Sierpinski type sets, it is shown that a particular stochastic construction will indeed produce a Cantor subset of [0,1 ] whose Hausdorff dimension is 5 -2 \/. It should be noted that Examples 4.1, 4.2 and 4.3 have a.s. Hausdorff dimensions 1 /2 , (17 -3 )/2 , and 2 -1 , but such numbers are of course much less significant than the Mighty Golden Ratio. The authors themselves don’t mention it by name, perhaps not being inspired by the same vision as el Naschie.

Of course, these constructions are being done within an ambient Euclidean space, so I fail (as would Mauldin and Williams, I suspect) to see how space-time can be fit into this framework. Well, there’s always the Procrustean approach, I guess.

But yay! Out of this thread, I’ve actually found some interesting mathematics to read.

Posted by: yemon choi on November 12, 2008 9:14 AM

Re: The Case of M. S. El Naschie

John,

if you are not well educated enough to understand this man’s breakthroughs maybe you should contact some clever guys that have been in contact with him:

http://www.el-naschie.net/bilder/image/prof-el-naschie-nobel-laurates-gross-thooft-wilcezk.jpg

Posted by: Robert on November 9, 2008 8:28 AM

Re: The Case of M. S. El Naschie

Even more impressive is this press release (?) that El Naschie put on his website:

http://www.dailygrail.com/node/5770

which looks like something straight out of the script for What the Bleep Do We Know!?. Enjoy.

Posted by: Todd Trimble on November 9, 2008 12:24 PM

Re: The Case of M. S. El Naschie

Could you show me where this stuff appears on El Naschie’s website, Todd?

The website you linked to is typical eclectic crackpot blather — there’s plenty of that on the web. It’s amusing in small doses. But I’m more concerned about Elsevier running a ‘high impact factor’ journal where the editor gets to publish his own papers without any external check on their quality — and university libraries are forced to buy it due to ‘journal bundling’. If the system has really become this corrupt, it’s got to be fixed.

Posted by: John Baez on November 9, 2008 4:14 PM

Re: The Case of M. S. El Naschie

It’s linked from his website (click on news/press). So technically it’s not on his website, but it’s linked from his website presumably with his approval, which is just as bad.

Posted by: Todd Trimble on November 9, 2008 9:56 PM

Re: The Case of M. S. El Naschie

This site is supposed to be dealing with mathematics, physics and philosophy. I haven’t seen much of any of these in the comments about El Naschie. Ironically, I know about John Baez and his work from Mohamed El Naschie. Mohamed always says he is a very imaginative mathematical physicist as opposed to theoretical physicist. Mohamed has always described himself as a theoretical physicist who just happens to believe that set theory in connection with group theory will hold the final answer for quantum gravity and he claims to have seen many promising ideas from Baez’ work. I think that is the main difference between El Naschie and others, if I may say so. Mohamed tries to embrace and unify. The others are continuously segregating and discriminating. What they don’t understand is by definition wrong. What they don’t know about is by definition not needed. What they are not familiar with is inessential. In this sense I am addressing John Baez for whom I still have a great deal of respect. You see John the opposite of truth is yet a deeper truth. This is the depth implicit in Mohamed El Naschie’s use of non conventional mathematics and that is why he is right. By contrast the opposite of a fallacy will always be the truth and therefore all these fallacious arguments used against El Naschie will fail. The main idea here is not mine. It is due to Niels Bohr. He told the young Heisenberg what I have just said albeit in another context.

The sad thing about what you have written and the way you have written is that it has nothing to do with science. This is envy from the fact that he is independent and that he is an Editor in Chief of a journal which he founded two decades ago when no one believed that nonlinear sciences, chaos and fractals are anything more than a fashionable mathematical craze that will last for a short while. Imaginative scientists always complain about old boy’s networks, cliques and oppressive establishments. However, when someone who got the opportunity and the capability to circumvent those hindrances presents things in new and unusual ways, then you suddenly try to get at him and help the establishment to destroy him. No matter how long I live, I will never understand this folly and this dark side of the human soul. I pray to God that I will be spared experiencing how it must be to be full of such jealousy.

Yours sincerely,

B. Cherikov

Posted by: Cherikov on November 11, 2008 9:15 PM

Re: The Case of M. S. El Naschie

I am certainly no expert, but it seems to me that every scientist or mathematician, indeed any serious thinker, must maintain a balance between their intuitions and pattern finding and their capacity to justify and examine their intuitions with logic. Thinking through the connotations of your possible insights and exposing your own thought process is vital if you are to truly produce a new way of solving real world problems, or even creating a field that produces answers to questions.

“Reductionism” is not the enemy, as everyone looks at their own form of big picture, and so called interdisciplinary thinkers merely create new disciplines that overlap the existing ones. Instead I would say that the flaw that people often complain about is really lack of self-criticism, and the belief that your field subsumes all other insights.

To unify is noble, but the trick is to do it without relying simply on the structural ambiguities of the medium in which you are presenting them; in the dark, everyone looks the same!

I do not believe that the core of the criticism is jealousy, but rather it is probably based on a similar attitude to my own, and it is better I think to assume some kernel of good motive in criticism, and so find a way to benefit from it.

Posted by: Josh W on November 11, 2008 11:14 PM

Re: The Case of M. S. El Naschie

Todd, that’s not from What the …. It’s clearly lifted from Timecube.

Posted by: John Armstrong on November 9, 2008 5:53 PM

Re: The Case of M. S. El Naschie

Well… whatever. Somehow I thought “daily grail” evoked more of the spirit of Ramtha, but perhaps you have a keener palate for this stuff than I!

Posted by: Todd Trimble on November 9, 2008 9:43 PM

Re: The Case of M. S. El Naschie

What correlation is there between the amount of bold used on a web page and the amount of useful content contained therein?

Posted by: Michael Lugo on November 11, 2008 3:11 PM

Re: The Case of M. S. El Naschie

Not as strong a negative correlation as between useful content and use of the

Posted by: John Armstrong on November 11, 2008 3:42 PM

Re: The Case of M. S. El Naschie

Dear colleague, I did contact one of the Nobel laureates from the picture and he did (without me mentioning word “number trickery” or the like) say that El Naschie is “unable to grasp the difference between real science and number trickery” and “not so much of a menace because he is basically just being ignored”. Making picture with somebody and actually making science with somebody

are rather different. Some Nobel laureates are quite tolerant. Having pictures, friends, money, false affilations, editorships and so on, are external features, and science and reasoning are internal feature of reason and not wealth and influence.

I did get a rather official confirmation that his affiliation at Goethe University is false at present time. It looks like they might prosecute him for this.

Posted by: Zoran Skoda on November 10, 2008 9:06 PM

Re: The Case of M. S. El Naschie

Zoran said: “Making picture with somebody and actually making science with somebody are rather different. Some Nobel laureates are quite tolerant.”

I agree with this. I took a class taught by Wilczek (a few years before he won the Nobel) and I have to say that he generally struck me as a nice guy, and not the sort of person that would say “f*** you, I don’t want to be in the same room as this crackpot!” (These are the impressions of a freshman in college who slept through a lot of the lectures because they were early in the morning, though.)

Posted by: Michael Lugo on November 11, 2008 3:14 PM

Re: The Case of M. S. El Naschie

Apparently, he has also “made science” with some reputable researchers like Amr Elnashai. Could it be that El Naschie was at one point (probably still is) a reasonable expert in one area of science (engineering) but turned into a crackpot in another area (physics)?

Posted by: Anon on November 13, 2008 9:25 AM

Re: The Case of M. S. El Naschie

Amr Elhashai is his brother.

Posted by: PhilG on November 13, 2008 12:37 PM

Re: The Case of M. S. El Naschie

It raises more questions than that: what are we going to do about it?

Posted by: James Cranch on November 9, 2008 11:25 AM

Re: The Case of M. S. El Naschie

James wrote:

It raises more questions than that: what are we going to do about it?

Indeed! I think the first step is to find out what’s going on and let people know about it.

If the situation is as bad as it looks, once enough people know about it Elsevier will need to fix it. They engage in tough negotiations with university libraries over prices of their journal bundles. And they support PRISM, which lobbies against government-mandated open access, saying they “risk undermining the very fabric of the system of independent, formal peer-reviewed publication.”

Imagine how these negotiations and policy debates will go if it becomes apparent that one of their journals is corrupt and riddled with pseudoscientific numerology!

Posted by: John Baez on November 9, 2008 4:44 PM

Re: The Case of M. S. El Naschie

The point that strikes me, that I haven’t seen mentioned yet, is that Chaos, Solitons and Fractals does appear to have other staff listed in addition to El Naschie. Even if it’s just a sinecure position, if I was one of them I’d be extremely uncomfortable having my name associated with a journal containing such a high proportion of such “work”. If they do actually end up doing actual work like reviewing/collating reviews/etc for the journal then I’d definitely think there were other places I could put my name (with the obvious irony I’m being pseudonymous in n-Category comments) rather than a journal like that.

I doubt we’ll ever find out, but did Elsevier ever receive any worries or complaints from anyone else on this journal and how did they respond?

Posted by: bane on November 11, 2008 9:02 AM

Re: The Case of M. S. El Naschie

A rather famous mathematician, upon reading this blog entry, has promised to contact Elsevier and pressure them to do something about this situation. We’ll see what happens (if anything).

Posted by: John Baez on November 11, 2008 5:06 PM

Re: The Case of M. S. El Naschie

I can think of one, rather juvenile, way to raise awareness of the problem: see if Chaos, Solitons and Fractals will publish an article on the applications of E-infinity theory to the topological field theory of the initial singularity of spacetime. Certainly, the formulation of quantum vacuum fluctuations in terms of Cantor sets should be relevant to categorifying the KMS condition, thereby making the central charge of the extended Distler-Lisi superalgebra a well-defined quantity at the Planck scale. While such an approach is speculative in the extreme, it could potentially revolutionize the transformative hermeneutics of quantum gravity.

Posted by: Blake Stacey on November 10, 2008 6:09 AM

Re: The Case of M. S. El Naschie

What a great idea, Blake! Why didn’t I think of doing this before blogging about the situation? It’s probably too late now. It would have been hilarious — the reverse Sokal hoax the world has been waiting for. And it would have been the best way to blow open this case.

Posted by: John Baez on November 10, 2008 5:20 PM

Re: The Case of M. S. El Naschie

Good lord, did anybody seen the now deleted wikipedia page on this guy?

From the deleted article:

He is advisor of the Egyptian Ministry for Science and Technology (High Energy Physics and Nanotechnology). He is Honorary Professor in Shanghai`s Jiao Tong University as well as the Donghua University in the People`Republic of China.

He is also the principal advisor of the Ministry of Science and Technology of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KACST - Riyadh) since many years.

Posted by: CSTAR on November 9, 2008 7:10 PM

Re: The Case of M. S. El Naschie

As of today the deleted Wikipedia article on Mohamed El Naschie can still be seen in the Google cache.

It will eventually go away. So, for the sake of posterity, here it is:

Mohamed El Naschie

Mohamed El Naschie is a theoretical physicist and engineer born 1943 in Cairo, Egypt. [1] Beginning with his 1994 paper “Is Quantum Space a Random Cantor Set with a Golden Mean Dimension at the Core?”[2] E-infinity space-time theory El Naschie has been a central figure in the field of fractal cosmology.

Education

He received his entire education in West Germany (Hamburg and Hannover ) and later on in England where he obtained his Ph.D. from the University College, London - UK. He is a fellow of the Institute of Physics, England and a distinguished Fellow of the Physics Institute of the Johann Wolfgang Goethe University, Frankfurt. He is a visiting Professor in numerous Universities including University of Cairo, University of Alexandria (Dept. of Physics), Egypt.

He is advisor of the Egyptian Ministry for Science and Technology (High Energy Physics and Nanotechnology). He is Honorary Professor in Shanghai’s Jiao Tong University as well as the Donghua University in the People`Republic of China.

He is also the principal advisor of the Ministry of Science and Technology of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KACST - Riyadh) since many years.

Professor El Naschie was trained initially as an engineer and worked extensively in Structural Engineering and Applied Mechanics. After becoming full Professor of Engineering he followed his inclination towards theoretical subjects and moved first towards Applied Mathematics and later on Nuclear and High Energy Physics. His research interests include: Stability, Bifurcation. Atomic-engineering, Nonlinear Dynamics, Chaos, Fractals, High Energy Particle Physics, Quantum Mechanics and E-infinity theory. He is editor-in-chief and associate editor of numerous learned journals.

References

1. http://www.el-naschie.net/el-naschie-physicist.asp?site=256&lang=

2. http://elnaschie.com/bilder/file/4.%20Is%20quantum%20space%20a%20random%20Cantor%20set.pdf

Categories: Egyptian physicists | Cosmologists

This information, including the unusual typo “People`Republic of China”, can mostly be found El Naschie’s homepage, where it says:

Mohamed El Naschie, born 1943 in Cairo, Egypt. He received his entire education in West Germany (Hamburg and Hannover ) and later on in England where he obtained his Ph.D. from the University College, London - U.K.. He is a fellow of the Institute of Physics, England and a distinguised Fellow of the Physics Institute of the Johann Wolfgang Goethe University, Frankfurt. He is a visiting Professor in numerous Universities including University of Cairo, University of Alexandria (Dept. of Physics), Egypt.

He is advisor of the Egyptian Ministry for Science and Technology (High Energy Physics and Nanotechnology). He is Honorary Professor in Shanghai`s Jiao Tong University as well as the Donghua University in the People`Republic of China.

He is also the principle advisor of the Ministry of Science and Technology of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KACST - Riyadh) since many years.

On his homepage, his mailing address is listed as P.O. Box 272, Cobham, Surrey KT11 2FQ, England, U.K.

A brief search through the Goethe Universität website revealed no mention of El Naschie.

You’ll note that in the Wikipedia article the phrase “E-infinity space-time theory” is stuck into the second sentence in a curious way. This was a link to another Wikipedia article that has also been deleted. This too is currently visible in the Google cache. Again, for the sake of posterity, here it is:

E-infinity theory

E infinity theory is a fractal cosmology model made by M. S. El Naschie beginning in 1994[1]. This models a harmonic production of quarks and elementary particles through a golden section centered Cantorian fractal spacetime.

The crucial step in E infinity formulation was to identify the stormy ocean-like behavior of quantum spacetime with vacuum fluctuation and using the mathematical tools of non-linear dynamics, complexity theory, and chaos. In particular, the geometry of chaotic dynamics, namely fractal geometry, is reduced to its quintessence, (i.e., Cantor sets) and employed directly in the geometrical description of the fluctuation of the vacuum.

E infinity theory admits formally infinite-dimensional ‘‘real’’ spacetime. However this infinity is hierarchical in a strict mathematical way and is able to show that although E infinity has formally infinitely many dimensions, seen from a distance, i.e., at low resolution or equivalently at low energy, it mimics the appearance of a four-dimensional spacetime manifold which has only four dimensions. Thus, the four dimensionality is a probabilistic statement, a so-called expectation value. It is remarkable that the Hausdorff dimension of this topologically four dimensional-like ‘‘pre’’ manifold is also a finite value equal to the cube of golden mean (4,236…).[2]

See Also:

Fractal cosmology

Fractal time

Scale relativity

References

1. Is Quantum Space a Random Cantor Set with a Golden Mean Dimension at the Core?”

2. El Naschie, Mohamed (2004), “A review of e(8) theory and the mass spectrum of high energy particle physics”, Chaos, Solitons & Fractals 19(1): 209–236, doi:10.1016/S0960-0779(03)00278-9, ISSN 0960-0779 .

The two papers here are nice examples of El Naschie’s papers in the journal he edits. Unlike most, the first is freely available — for now. So, check it out!

Posted by: John Baez on November 9, 2008 7:59 PM

Re: The Case of M. S. El Naschie

Hi John,

thanks for picking up this story! It’s a bit like “Einstein-Cartan-Evans Theory” hijacking Foundation of Physics Letters ;-)

I have been suspicious a few times how it can happen that such a journal is being published. It may well be that the papers on nonlinear dynamics proper are fine, but a lot of other stuff is clearly crappy. It’s not just the E-infinity Cantor sponge - for example, Otto Roesslers paper showing his understanding of GR and underlying his “LHC black hole eats Earth in 50 days” musings had also been published there.

Anyway, El-Nashie is indeed a “Distinguished Fellow” in Frankfurt - he was awarded this title in June 2002, and there is even a writeup of the speeches of this event (in German, as PDF). However, this “Fellowship” has not been awarded by the physics department, but by a private association. El-Nashie gave a talk at the physics colloquium around that time which was quite, eh, strange. But some of the elder faculty seemed to be lured by him somehow.

He later also was a visitor at the Frankurt Institute for Advanced Studies, if I remember correctly, but as far as I know, he never had any official affiliation to FIAS.

Posted by: Stefan on November 11, 2008 9:14 PM

Re: The Case of M. S. El Naschie

Thanks for the information, Stefan! I hope you or Bee blog about this a little. I bet a lot more people read Backreaction than the n-Category Café, and surely more physicists. It’s an entertaining story, when properly told — and if enough people find out about it, any problems that may exist will surely be fixed.

Anyway, El-Nashie is indeed a “Distinguished Fellow” in Frankfurt - he was awarded this title in June 2002, and there is even a writeup of the speeches of this event (in German, as PDF). However, this “Fellowship” has not been awarded by the physics department, but by a private association.

Hmm, that’s a curious arrangement! His webpage says he’s a “distinguised Fellow of the Physics Institute of the Johann Wolfgang Goethe University, Frankfurt”.

Posted by: John Baez on November 12, 2008 3:19 AM

Re: The Case of M. S. El Naschie

Hi John, thanks for the nice words! I guess you are overestimating the reach of backreaction a bit ;-) - at least your voice is much more important in this story!

Actually, I had thought about writing a post on “Chaos, Solitons and Fractals” and El Naschie earlier this year - that was when Otto Roessler’s “Black Holes at the LHC” fearmongering came up, and Roessler made a point that he had published papers on the foundations of his “theory” - unfortunately, the Journal turned out to be “Chaos, Solitons and Fractals”, where he is on the Honorary Editorial Board. Now, of course, I knew this journal, because big piles of printed copies had been lying around in the coffee room of the Frankfurt theoretical physics institute - that was because the former director of the institute was/is also on the Honorary Editorial Board. Eventually, I didn’t write anything, in part because I was a bit afraid to embarrass our former director and my editor-in-chief at that time (in his role as the Regional Editor Europe for CS&F). I am not sure what they actually think of El Naschie and its scientific merits, but I have some ideas…

About the “Distinguished Fellowship”, that’s bit complicated, and I was not sure who actually had awarded this title to El Naschie until I read it again in the printed proceedings of the event - even though I had been there at the time. The thing is, to my knowledge, no German university department awards anything as a “Distinguished Fellowship” - there are honorary doctorates/professorships, but no “fellowships”. In this case, a few Frankfurt physics professors and wealthy Frankfurt citizens had founded a few years ago an “Association for the Advancement of Fundamental Research in Physics” - basically a fundraising organisation which awards prizes each year to physics faculty and students. In principle, this is a very good idea, I think. And it is this association that has awarded the “Distinguished Fellowship” to El Naschie - whatever this means. But I am not so sure if he (or many other people, that is) is aware of the fact that the association and the physics department are distinct organisations.

Posted by: Stefan on November 12, 2008 9:40 PM

Re: The Case of M. S. El Naschie

Naschie’s been around for a while as I remember. I believe there was a controversy a few years ago where he falsely claimed a DAMTP affiliation on a paper on the arXiv, for example.

Posted by: Aaron Bergman on November 12, 2008 9:54 PM

Re: The Case of M. S. El Naschie

Interesting. El Naschie has two papers on the arXiv. One has been withdrawn. The other says “The incorrect affiliation of M. S. El Naschie was removed”.

There are at least 25 papers that mention his name somehow. A number of these say: “Invited paper to appear in the special issue of the ‘Journal of Chaos, Solitons and Fractals’ on: “Superstrings, M,F,S,… Theory”.

One of these has Yuval Ne’eman as an author!

Posted by: John Baez on November 13, 2008 4:39 AM

Re: The Case of M. S. El Naschie

I know many of the authors of those invited papers. They seem perfectly legit. On the other hand, the other listed editor, Carlos Castro (who appears to have renamed himself Carlos Castro Perelman), has a long, not-so-illustrious history with the arXiv. Google if you want to dive deep into the seamy underbelly of the preprint server.

Posted by: Aaron Bergman on November 13, 2008 4:51 AM

Re: The Case of M. S. El Naschie

“Perelman”?? Wow! I first heard about Carlos Castro in regards the Riemann hypothesis.

By the way, it turns out that Laurent Nottale of ‘scale relativity’ fame is on the board of editors of Chaos, Solitons & Fractals.

(Read the Wikipedia article on this soon — it may not last long! And check out the picture of a sharpened pencil.)

Posted by: John Baez on November 13, 2008 6:50 AM

Re: The Case of M. S. El Naschie

On his homepage, his mailing address is listed as P.O. Box 272, Cobham, Surrey KT11 2FQ, England, U.K.

The official page for Chaos, Solitons & Fractals lists this same address for Mr. El Naschie, but curiously, no academic affiliation. Most of the associate editors have academic affiliations listed (with one exception, somebody with a post office box in Denmark).

I looked up Cobham on Google Maps. It’s a London suburb, southwest of the city, just inside the M25 beltway. I’m not familiar enough with greater London to know if that’s a likely place for an allegedly distinguished scientist to live, but I’m not aware of any universities around there.

Posted by: Eric Lund on November 12, 2008 2:36 PM

Re: The Case of M. S. El Naschie

That doesn’t mean anything, though—he could easily commute into London from there. Though not from Egypt, of course.

Posted by: Tim Silverman on November 12, 2008 3:01 PM

Re: The Case of M. S. El Naschie

“since many years.”

I wish I had a better grasp at broad swaths of linguistics, because this is a non-native speaker error I’ve seen a lot. But I only really know for sure that Germans are prone to it.

Any chance this guy is a reverse Sokal? I doubt it, though. This sounds like Warda and Hahn all over again - just on an even grander scale. The guy has chutzpah, I s’pose.

Posted by: Sili on November 10, 2008 7:25 PM

Re: The Case of M. S. El Naschie

“since many years.”

I wish I had a better grasp at broad swaths of linguistics, because this is a non-native speaker error I’ve seen a lot. But I only really know for sure that Germans are prone to it.

It also arises from the French “depuis quelques annees”. Vocabulary-fluent French speakers of English substitute “depuis”=>”since”, “quelques”=>”several” or “many”, and “annees”=>”years”. Counting and calendar-related nouns are fairly universal things in Europe, so “many” and “years” translate well, but prepositions and relational words— not to mention verb-tense— do not.

English in particular is fond of auxiliaries, whereas French often prefers declension as in “he had been painting” vs. “il peignait”. (clearly, more context is required for this translation pair to be correct)

Another part of the difficulty is the English “ago” that distinguishes logical vs. temporal “since”. The closest consctruct I know in French to this “ago” is the prefatory “il-y-a”, as in “il-y-a quelques annees, …”, but this seems to signal implicit completion, whatever tense of verb follows:

“Il-y-a quelques annees, je croyait avoir resolu l’hypothese de Riemann.” — “croyait” is imperfect, signifying belief extended in time, but in the full context, that extent is separated from the present. The comparable anglicism “Depuis il-y-a … ” doesn’t seem to arise natively. Try this search to check.

Finally it doesn’t help that what might be the best translation uses “for” instead of “since”. “For” is yet another of those very-overloaded English prepositions. I don’t want to get started on that… this is probably enough digression for now.

Posted by: some guy on the street on November 10, 2008 9:28 PM

Re: The Case of M. S. El Naschie

As of today, the website getCITED lists 230 publications for El Naschie, in reverse chronological order.

The first one on the list has the delightful title ‘Thomas Mann and Heinrich Mann, Dual Brothers and Complimentary Genius Embraced by Complex Reality’. It appeared in International Journal of Nonlinear Science & Numerical Simulation, with no date listed.

Ever since 1993, the vast majority of his papers were published in his own journal, Chaos, Solitons & Fractals. They’re mainly about something he calls ‘E-infinity theory’.

Before 1993, he published in various engineering journals. His publications back then were very different! A typical title is ‘A branching solution for the local buckling of a circumferentially cracked cylindrical shell’. It would be interesting to know what happened in 1993.

The sheer magnitude of El Naschie’s accomplishments is difficult to grasp without perusing his list of publications. So, for your reading pleasure, here it is:

El Naschie, M.S.. (no date) Thomas Mann and Heinrich Mann, Dual Brothers and Complimentary Genius Embraced by Complex Reality (Journal Article in International Journal of Nonlinear Science & Numerical Simulation )

El Naschie, M.S.. (no date) Is gravity less fundamental than elementary particles theory? Critical remarks on holography and E-infinity (Journal Article in Chaos Solitons and Fractals )

El Naschie, M.S.. (2008) String theory, exceptional Lie groups hierarchy and the structural constant of the universe (Journal Article in Chaos Solitons and Fractals )

El Naschie, M.S.. (2008) Super-symmetric quantum gravity inverse coupling from the Exceptional Lie symmetry groups hierarchy (Journal Article in Chaos Solitons and Fractals )

El Naschie, M.S.. (2008) Exceptional Lie groups hierarchy and some fundamental high energy physics equations (Journal Article in Chaos Solitons and Fractals )

El Naschie, M.S.. (2008) Notes on exceptional lie symmetry groups hierarchy and possible implications for E-infinity high energy physics (Journal Article in Chaos Solitons and Fractals )

El Naschie, M.S.. (2008) Roots lattices hierarchies of exceptional Lie symmetry groups and the elementary particles content of the standard model (Journal Article in Chaos Solitons and Fractals )

El Naschie, M.S.. (2008) Extended renormalizations group analysis for quantum gravity and Newton`s gravitational constant (Journal Article in Chaos Solitons and Fractals )

El Naschie, M.S.. (2008) The exceptional eightfold way to a possible Higgs field (Journal Article in Chaos Solitons and Fractals )

El Naschie, M.S.. (2008) Symmetry group prerequisite for E-infinity in high energy physics (Journal Article in Chaos Solitons and Fractals )

El Naschie, M.S.. (2008) Noether`s theorem, exceptional Lie groups hierarchy and determining 1/ alpha = 137 of electromagnetism (Journal Article in Chaos Solitons and Fractals )

El Naschie, M.S.. (2007) The elementary particles content of quantum spacetime via Feynman graphs and higher dimensional polytops (Journal Article in Chaos Solitons and Fractals )

El Naschie, M.S.. (2007) Gauge anomalies, SU(N) irreducible representation and the number of elementary particles of a minimally extended standard model (Journal Article in Chaos Solitons and Fractals )

El Naschie, M.S.. (2007) Hilbert space, Poincari dodecahedron and golden mean transfiniteness (Journal Article in Chaos Solitons and Fractals )

El Naschie, M.S.. (2007) The Fibonacci code behind super strings and P-branes. An answer to M. Kaku`s fundamental question (Journal Article in Chaos Solitons and Fractals )

El Naschie, M.S.. (2007) Estimating the experimental value of the electromagnetic fine structure constant alpha = 1/137.036 using the leech lattice in conjunction with the mosnter group and Spher`s kissing number in 24 dimensions (Journal Article in Chaos Solitons and Fractals )

El Naschie, M.S.. (2007) SU(5) grand unification in a transfinite form (Journal Article in Chaos Solitons and Fractals )

El Naschie, M.S.. (2007) An economist for all seasons - John Kenneth Galbraith (Journal Article in Chaos, Solitons & Fractals )

El Naschie, M.S.. (2007) On gauge invariance, dissipative quantum mechanics and self-adjoint sets (Journal Article in Chaos Solitons and Fractals )

El Naschie, M.S.. (2007) A derivation of the electromagnetic coupling alpha = 137.036 (Journal Article in Chaos Solitons and Fractals )

El Naschie, M.S.. (2006) Hilbert space, the number of Higgs particles and the quantum two-slit experiment (Journal Article in Chaos Solitons and Fractals ) Editor

No contributors listed. (2006) Holographic dimensional reduction: Center manifold theorem an E-infinity (Journal Article in Chaos Solitons and Fractals )

El Naschie, M.S.. (2006) Hilbert, Fock and Cantorian spaces in the quantum two-slit gedanken experiment (Journal Article in Chaos Solitons and Fractals )

El Naschie, M.S.. (2006) Elementary number theory in superstrings, loop quantum mechanics, twistors and E-infinity high energy physics (Journal Article in Chaos Solitons and Fractals )

El Naschie, M.S.. (2006) The idealized quantum two-slit gedanken-experiment revisted-Criticism and reinterpretation (Journal Article in Chaos Solitons and Fractals )

El Naschie, M.S.. (2006) Fractal black holes and information (Journal Article in Chaos Solitons and Fractals )

El Naschie, M.S.. (2006) Superstirngs, entropy and the elementary particles content of the standard model (Journal Article in Chaos Solitons and Fractals )

El Naschie, M.S.. (2006) On being a man who wants to know everything: G `t Hoofts 60th birthday address (Journal Article in Chaos Solitons and Fractals )

El Naschie, M.S.. (2006) On teo fuzzy Kdhler manifolds, Klein modular space and `t-Hooft holographic principles (Journal Article in Chaos Solitons and Fractals )

El Naschie, M.S.. (2006) Pentaquark mass sum rule and the Higgs (Journal Article in Chaos Solitons and Fractals )

El Naschie, M.S.. (2006) Topics in the mathematical physics of E-infinity theory (Journal Article in Chaos Solitons and Fractals )

El Naschie, M.S.. (2006) The Feynman Path Integral and E-infinity from tzhe two-slit Gedanken Experiment (Journal Article in International Journal of Nonlinear Science & Numerical Simulation )

El Naschie, M.S.. (2006) Advanced prerequisite for E-infinity theory (Journal Article in Chaos Solitons and Fractals )

El Naschie, M.S.. (2006) Intermediate prerequisites for E-infinity theory (further recomended reading in nonlinear dynamics and mathematical physics) (Journal Article in Chaos Solitons and Fractals )

El Naschie, M.S.. (2006) Elementary prerequisites for E-infinity: (Recommended background reading in nonlinear dynamics, geometry and topology (Journal Article in Chaos Solitons and Fractals )

El Naschie, M.S.. (2006) Is Einstein`s general field equation more fundamental than quantum field theory and particle physics? (Journal Article in Chaos Solitons and Fractals )

El Naschie, M.S.. (2006) Nanotechnolgy for the developing world (Journal Article in Chaos Solitons and Fractals )

El Naschie, M.S.. (2006) Fuzzy Dodecahedron topology and E-infinity spacetime as a model for quantum physics (Journal Article in Chaos Solitons and Fractals )

El Naschie, M.S.. (2006) On the vital role played by the electron-volt units system in high energy physics and mach`s principle of “Denkvkonomie” (Journal Article in Chaos Solitons and Fractals )

El Naschie, M.S.. (2006) Holographic correspondence and quantum gravity in E-infinity spacetime (Journal Article in Chaos Solitons and Fractals )

El Naschie, M.S.. (2006) An elementary proof for the nine missing particles of the standard model (Journal Article in Chaos Solitons and Fractals )

El Naschie, M.S.. (2006) Superstring theory: What it cannot do but E-infinity could (Journal Article in Chaos Solitons and Fractals )

El Naschie, M.S.. (2006) E- infinity theory - Some recent results and new interpretations (Journal Article in Chaos Solitons and Fractals )

El Naschie, M.S.. (2006) The missing particles of the Standard model via a unified particle-field framework (Journal Article in International Journal of Nonlinear Science & Numerical Simulation )

El Naschie, M.S.. (2006) Linderhof Room of Mirrors, Thurston Three.manifolds and the Geometry of our Universe (Journal Article in International Journal of Nonlinear Science & Numerical Simulation )

El Naschie, M.S.. (2005) On Pauli`s principle of “Zweiteilung und Symmetrie Verminderung” in Higgs physics and non-linear dynmaics (Journal Article in Chaos, Solitons & Fractals )

El Naschie, M.S.. (2005) Anomaly cancellation and the mass spectrum of … (Journal Article in Chaos solitons and fractals )

El Naschie, M.S.. (2005) Determining the number of Higg`s Particle starting from general relativity and various other field theories (Journal Article in Chaos solitons and fractals )

El Naschie, M.S.. (2005) Einstein`s dream and fractals geometry (Journal Article in Chaos Solitons and Fractals )

El Naschie, M.S.. (2005) `t Hooft ultimate building blocks and space-time as an infinite dimensional set of transfinite discrete points (Journal Article in Chaos Solitons and Fractals )

El Naschie, M.S.. (2005) The supersymmetric components of the Riemann-Einstein tensor as nine dimensional spheres in ten dimensional space (Journal Article in Chaos Solitons and Fractals )

El Naschie, M.S.. (2005) On a Fuzzy Kdhler-like manifold which is consistent with the two slit experiment (Journal Article in International Journal of Nonlinear Science and Numerical Simulation )

El Naschie, M.S.. (2005) Deriving the essential features of the standard model from the general theory of relativity (Journal Article in Chaos Solitons and Fractals )

El Naschie, M.S.. (2005) Experimental and theoretical arguements for the number and mass of the Higgs particles (Journal Article in Chaos Solitons and Fractals )

El Naschie, M.S.. (2005) Einstein in a complex time - some very personal thoughts about E-infinity theory and modern physics (Journal Article in International Journal of Nonlinear Sciences and Numerical Simulation )

El Naschie, M.S.. (2005) Anton Chekhov - SCientist, Poet and Enviromental Nonlinear Dynamics (Journal Article in International Journal of Nonlinear Science and Numerical Simulation )

El Naschie, M.S.. (2005) Spinorial content of the standard model, a different look a super-symmetry and fuzzy E-infinity hyper Kaehler (Journal Article in Chaos Solitons and Fractals )

El Naschie, M.S.. (2005) Stability analysis of the two-slit experiments with quantum particles (Journal Article in Chaos Solitons and Fractals )

El Naschie, M.S.. (2005) Transfinite electrical networks, spinoral varieties and gravity Q-bits. (Journal Article in International Journal of Nonlinear Science & Numerical Simulation )

El Naschie, M.S.. (2005) Higgs number form anomaly cancellation and super Riemann tensor (Journal Article in Chaos Solitons and Fractals )

El Naschie, M.S.. (2005) On 336 kissing spheres in 10 dimensions, 528 P-brane states in 11 dimensions and the 60 elementary particles of the standard model. (Journal Article in Chaos Solitons and Fractals )

El Naschie, M.S.. (2005) On the possibility of six gravity related particles in the standard model of high energy physics (Journal Article in Chaos Solitons and Fractals )

El Naschie, M.S.. (2005) Anton Chekhov - Scientist, Poet and Enviromental Nonlinear Dynamics (Journal Article in International Journal of Nonlinear Sciences and Numerical Simulation )

El Naschie, M.S.. (2005) From the two-slit experiments to the expected number of Higgs particles in the standard model (Journal Article in Chaos Solitons and Fractals )

El Naschie, M.S.. (2005) Proving superstring theory using loop quantum mechanics (Journal Article in Chaos Solitons and Fractals )

El Naschie, M.S.. (2005) On the cohomology and instantons number in E-infinity Cantorian spacetime (Journal Article in Chaos Solitons and Fractals )

El Naschie, M.S.. (2005) Non-Euclidean spacetime structure and the two-slit experiment (Journal Article in Chaos Solitons and Fractals )

El Naschie, M.S.. (2005) Stability analysis of the two-slit experiment with quantum particles (Journal Article in Chaos Solitons and Fractals )

El Naschie, M.S.. (2005) Spinorial content of the standard model, a different look at supersymmetry and fuzzy E-infinity hyper Kdhler (Journal Article in Chaos Solitons and Fractals )

El Naschie, M.S.. (2005) On a class of fuzzy Kdhler-like manifolds (Journal Article in Chaos Solitons and Fractals )

El Naschie, M.S.. (2005) A guide to the mathematics of E-infinity Cantorian spacetime theory (Journal Article in Chaos, Solitons & Fractals )

El Naschie, M.S.. (2005) Anew solution for the two-slit experiment (Journal Article in Chaos Solitons and Fractals )

El Naschie, M.S.. (2005) Kdhler-like manifolds, Weyl spinor particles and E-infinity high energy physics (Journal Article in Chaos Solitons and Fractals )

El Naschie, M.S.. (2005) From experimental quantum optics to quantum gravity via a fuzzy Kdhler manifold (Journal Article in Chaos Solitons and Fractals )

El Naschie, M.S.. (2005) The two-slit experiment as the foundation of E-infinity of high energy physics (Journal Article in Chaos Solitons and Fractals )

El Naschie, M.S.. (2005) An elementary model based method for determining the number of possible Higg bosons in the standard model (Journal Article in Chaos Solitons and Fractals )

El Naschie, M.S.. (2005) A tale of two Kleins unified in strings and E-infinity theory (Journal Article in Chaos Solitons and Fractals )

El Naschie, M.S.. (2005) Dead or alive: Desperately seeking Schrvdinger`s cat (Journal Article in Chaos Solitons and Fractals )

El Naschie, M.S.. (2005) A few hints and some theorems about Witten`s M theory and T-duality (Journal Article in Chaos Solitons and Fractals )

El Naschie, M.S.; El Naschie, M.S.. (2005) A note on various supersymmetric extensions of teh standard model of high-energy particles and E-infinity theory (Journal Article in Chaos Solitons and Fractals )

El Naschie. M.S., . (2005) On Penrose view of transfinite sets and computability and the fractals character of E-infinity spacetime (Journal Article in Chaos Solitons and Fractals )

El Naschie, . (2005) A P-Brane vindication of the two Higgs-doublet minimally super-symmetric standard model and related issues (Journal Article in Chaos Solitons and Fractals )

El Naschie, . (2005) On a class of fuzzy Kaehler-like manifolds (Journal Article in Chaos Solitons and Fractals )

El Naschie, . (2005) the Two-slit experiment as the foundation of E-infinity of high energy physics (Journal Article in Chaos Solitons and Fractals )

El Naschie, . (2005) On Einstein`s super symmetric tensor and the number of elementary particles of the standard model (Journal Article in Chaos Solitons and Fractals )

El Naschie M.S., ; El Naschie M.S., . (2004) A review of E infinity theory and the mass spectrum of high energy particle physics (Journal Article in Chaos, solitons, and fractals )

El Naschie, M.S.. (2004) How gravitational instanton could solve the mass problem of a disintegrating symplistic vacuum (Journal Article in Chaos Solitons and Fractals )

El Naschie, M.S.. (2004) Quantum gravity, Clifford algebras, fuzzy set theory and the fundmental constants of nature (Journal Article in Chaos Solitons and Fractals )

El Naschie, M.S.. (2004) The concept of E infinity: an elementary introduction to the Cantorian-fractal theory of the Quantum Physics (Journal Article in Chaos Solitons and Fractals )

El Naschie, M.S.. (2004) Gravitational instanton in Hilbert space and the mass of high energy elementary particles (Journal Article in Chaos Solitons and Fractals )

El Naschie, M.S.. (2004) New elementary particles as a possible product of a disintegrating symplictic vacuum (Journal Article in Chaos Solitons and Fractals )

El Naschie, M.S.. (2004) The symplictic vacuum, exotic quasdiparticles and gravitational instanton (Journal Article in Chaos Solitons and Fractals )

El Naschie, M.S.. (2004) The Concepts of E Infinity: An elementary introduction to the Cantorian-fractal theory of quantum physics (Journal Article in Chaos Solitons and Fractals )

El Naschie, M.S.. (2004) Supersymmetry, transfinited neural networks, hyperbolic manifolds, quantum gravity and the Higgs (Journal Article in Chaos Solitons and Fractals )

El Naschie, M.S.. (2004) Quantum gravity from descriptive set theory (Journal Article in Chaos Solitons and Fractals )

El Naschie, M.S.. (2004) An (Journal Article in Chaos Solitons and Fractals )

El Naschie, M.S.. (2004) New elementary particles as a possible product of a disintegrating symplistic vacuum (Journal Article in Chaos Solitons and Fractals )

El Naschie, M.S.. (2004) The concepts of E-infinity. An introduction to the Cantorian-fractal theory of Quantum Physics (Journal Article in Chaos Solitons and Fractals )

El Naschie, M.S.. (2004) How gravitational instanton could solve the mass problem of the standard model of high energy particle physics (Journal Article in Chaos Solitons and Fractals )

El Naschie, . (2004) The Higgs-physical and number theoretical arguments for the necessity of a triple elementary particle in super symmetric spacetime (Journal Article in Chaos Solitons and Fractals )

El Naschie, M.S.. (2003) The mass or the neutrinos via the energy of the cosmic background radiation of the VAK (Journal Article in Chaos Solitons and Fractals )

El Naschie, M.S.. (2003) Complx vacuum fluctuation as a chaotic “limit” set of any Kleinian group transformation and the mass spectrum of high energy particle physics via spontaneous self-organisation (Journal Article in Chaos Solitons and Fractals )

El Naschie, M.S.. (2003) The Cantorian interpretation of high energy physics and the mass spectrum of elementary particles (Journal Article in Chaos Solitons and Fractals )

El Naschie, M.S.. (2003) VAK, vacuum fluctuation and the mass spectrum of high energy particle physics (Journal Article in Chaos Solitons and Fractals )

El Naschie, M.S.. (2003) The VAK of vacuum fluctuation spontaneous self organization and complexity theory interpretation of high energy particle physics (Journal Article in Chaos Solitons and Fractals )

El Naschie, M.S.. (2003) Nonlinear dynamics and infinite dimensional topology in high energy particle physics (Journal Article in Chaos Solitons and Fractals )

El Naschie, M.S.. (2002) On the exact mass spectrum of quarks (Journal Article in Chaos Solitons and Fractals )

El Naschie, M.S.. (2002) On a glass of general theories for high energy particle phyiscs (Journal Article in Chaos Solitons and Fractals )

El Naschie, M.S.. (2002) Wild topology, hyperbolic geometry and fusion algebra of high energy particle physics (Journal Article in Chaos Solitons and Fractals )

El Naschie, M.S.. (2002) On the mass of the neutrinos (Journal Article in Chaos Solitons and Fractals )

El Naschie, M.S.. (2002) Modular groups in Cantorian E infinity high energy physics (Journal Article in Chaos Solitons and Fractals )

El Naschie, M.S.. (2002) Quantum loops, wild topology and fat Cantor sets in transfinite high energy Physics (Journal Article in Chaos Solitons and Fractals )

El Naschie, M.S.. (2002) Determining the temperature of microwave background radiation from the topology and geometry of spacetime (Journal Article in Chaos Solitons and Fractals )

El Naschie, M.S.. (2001) Heterotic string space-time from probability theory (Journal Article in Chaos Solitons and Fractals )

El Naschie, M.S.. (2001) On Twistors in Cantorian space. (Journal Article in Chaos Solitons and Fractals )

El Naschie, M.S.. (2001) The 26 dimensions of heterotic strings as a probabolistic standard deviation and expectation value of an infinite dimensional space (Journal Article in Chaos, Solitons & Fractals )

El Naschie, M.S.. (2001) On an indirect experimental confirmation of heterotic superstrings via electromagnetic fine structure constant (Journal Article in Chaos Solitons and Fractals )

El Naschie, M.S.. (2001) The dimensions of the heterotic theory and the expectation values of the Hausdorff dimension of a probabolistic stringy space (Journal Article in Chaos, Solitons & Fractals )

El Naschie, M.S.. (2001) The exact value of the smallest quantum gravity coupling constat 1/dg = 42.36067977 (Journal Article in Chaos Solitons and Fractals )

El Naschie, M.S.. (2001) Theoretical derivation and experimental confirmation of the topology of transfinite heterotic strings (Journal Article in Chaos, Solitons & Fractals )

El Naschie, M.S.. (2001) Notes on superstrings and the infinite sums of Fibonacci and Lucas numbers (Journal Article in Chaos Solitons and Fractals )

El Naschie, M.S.. (2001) Notes on superstrings and the infinite sums of Fibonacci and Lucas numbers (Journal Article in Chaos Solitons and Fractals )

El Naschie, M.S.. (2001) The Hausdorff dimensions of heterotic string fields are D (-)= 26.18033989 and D(+)= 10 (Journal Article in Chaos Solitons and Fractals )

El Naschie, M.S.. (2001) A general theory for the topology of transfinite heterotic strings and quantum gravity (Journal Article in Chaos Solitons and Fractals )

El Naschie, M.S.. (2001) Dimensional regularization implies transfinite heterotic string theory (Journal Article in Chaos Solitons and Fractals )

El Naschie, M.S.. (2001) Remarks to moduli space, virtual dimensions and heterotic strings (Journal Article in Chaos Solitons and Fractals )

El Naschie, M.S.. (2001) The 26 dimensions of heterotic strings as a probabilistic standard deviation and expectation value of an infinite dimensional space (Journal Article in Chaos Solitons and Fractals )

El Naschie, M.S.. (2001) On transfinite heterotic string theory (Journal Article in Chaos Solitons and Fractals )

El Naschie, M.S.. (2001) Dimensional regularization implies transfinite heterotic string theory (Journal Article in Chaos Solitons and Fractals )

El Naschie, M.S.. (2001) On a general theory for quantum- gravity interaction and an experimental confirmation of heterotic strings (Journal Article in Chaos Solitons and Fractals )

El Naschie, M.S.. (2001) Remarks to moduli spaces, virtual dimensions and heterotic strings (Journal Article in Chaos Solitons and Fractals )

El Naschie, M.S.. (2001) On a heterotic string-based algorithm for the determination of the fine structure constant (Journal Article in Chaos, Solitons & Fractals )

El Naschie, M.S.. (2000) Elastic buckling loads and fission critical mass as an eigenvalue of a symmetry breaking bifurcation (Journal Article in Chaos Solitons and Fractals )

El Naschie, M.S.. (2000) On the eigenvalue of nuclear reaction and self-weight buckling (Journal Article in Chaos Solitons and Fractals )

El Naschie, M.S.. (2000) On the eigenvalue of transport reaction involving fast neutron (Journal Article in Chaos Solitons and Fractals )

El Naschie, M.S.. (2000) Heisenberg`s critical mass calculations for an explosive nuclear reaction (Journal Article in Chaos Solitons and Fractals )

El Naschie, M.S.. (2000) Towards a geometrical theory for the unification of all fundamental forces (Journal Article in Chaos Solitons and Fractals )

El Naschie, M.S.. (2000) On the unification of the fundamental forces of complex time in the E-infinity space (Journal Article in Chaos Solitons and Fractals )

El Naschie, M.S.. (2000) Estimating the eigenvalue of fast reacotrs and Cantorian space (Journal Article in Chaos Solitons and Fractals )

El Naschie, M.S.. (2000) A simplified estimation of the critical mass of fast neutrons reaction (Journal Article in Chaos Solitons and Fractals )

El Naschie, M.S.. (2000) On spaces with 26 dimensions (Journal Article in Chaos Solitons and Fractals )

El Naschie M.S., . (1999) From implosion to fractal spheres: a brief account of the historical development of scientific ideas leading to the Trinity test and beyond (Journal Article in Chaos Solitons and Fractals )

El Naschie, M.S.. (1999) Nonlinear classical Dynamics and knot invariants (Journal Article in Chaos Solitons and Fractals )

El Naschie, M.S.. (1999) Hyperdimensional geometry and the nature of physical spacetime (Journal Article in Chaos Solitons and Fractals )

El Naschie, M.S.. (1999) A note on the subtle man in physics (Journal Article in Chaos Solitons and Fractals )

El Naschie, M.S.. (1999) Jones` invariant, Cantorian geometry and quantum spacetime (Journal Article in Chaos Solitons and Fractals )

El Naschie, M.S.. (1999) A note on quantum field theory and P-brans in n dimensions (Journal Article in Chaos Solitons and Fractals )

El Naschie, M.S.. (1999) A remark on the cosmic microwave background radiation and the Hausdorff dimension of spacetime (Journal Article in Chaos Solitons and Fractals )

El Naschie, M.S.. (1999) The golden mean in quantum geometry, knot theory and related topics (Journal Article in Chaos Solitons and Fractals )

El Naschie, M.S.. (1999) Nonlinear classical dynamics and knot invariants (Journal Article in Chaos Solitons and Fractals )

El Naschie, M.S.. (1999) Quantum Groups and Hamiltonian sets on nuclear space-time Cantorian manifold (Journal Article in Chaos Solitons and Fractals )

El Naschie. M.S., . (1999) The golden mean in quantum geometry, knot theory and related topics (Journal Article in Chaos Solitons and Fractals )

El Naschie, M.S.. (1998) Superstrings, knots and noncommutative geometry in space (Journal Article in International JOurnal of Theoretical Physics )

El Naschie, M.S.. (1998) Dimensional Symmetry breaking, information and fractal gravity in Cantorian space (Journal Article in BioSystems )

El Naschie, M.S.. (1998) On the irreducibility of spatial ambiguity in quantum physics (Journal Article in Chaos Solitons and Fractals )

El Naschie, M.S.. (1998) On the uncertainty of Cantorian geometry and the two-slit experiments (Journal Article in Chaos Solitons and Fractals )

El Naschie, M.S.. (1998) Four as the expectation value of the set of all positive integers and the geometry of four manifolds (Journal Article in Chaos Solitons and Fractals )

El Naschie, M.S.. (1998) Fredholm operators and the wave-particle diality in Cantorian space (Journal Article in Chaos Solitons and Fractals )

El Naschie, M.S.. (1998) The average (n) sphere spans a four-dimensional manifold (Journal Article in Chaos Solitons and Fractals )

El Naschie, M.S.. (1998) The fractal dimension of spacetime - remarks on theoretical derivation and experimental verification (Journal Article in Chaos Solitons and Fractals )

El Naschie, M.S.. (1998) Some tentative proposals for the experimental verfication of Cantorian micro space-time (Journal Article in Chaos Solitons and Fractals )

El Naschie, M.S.. (1998) Four as the expectation value of the set of all positive integers and the geometry of four manifolds (Journal Article in Chaos Solitons and Fractals )

El Naschie, M.S.. (1998) Chaos and Fractals in Nano and Quantum Technology (Journal Article in Chaos Solitons and Fractals )

El Naschie, M.S.. (1998) Penrose universe and Cantorian spacetime as a model for noncommutative quantum geometry (Journal Article in Chaos Solitons and Fractals )

El Naschie, M.S.. (1997) Dimensional Symmetry breaking, Information and the Arrow of Time in Cantorian Space (Journal Article in World Future Society bulletin )

El Naschie, M.S.. (1997) A note on quantum gravity and Cantorian spacetime (Journal Article in Chaos Solitons and Fractals )

El Naschie, M.S.. (1997) A note on quantum gravity and Cantorian spacetime (Journal Article in Chaos Solitons and Fractals )

El Naschie, M.S.. (1997) Remarks on superstrings, fractal gravity, Nagasawa`s diffusion and Cantorian space-time (Journal Article in Chaos Solitons and Fractals )

El Naschie, M.S.. (1997) Fractal gravity and symmetry breaking in a hierarchical Cantorian space (Journal Article in Chaos Solitons and Fractals )

El Naschie, M.S.. (1996) Kolomgorov scaling in Appolonian fractals as a model of Cantorian spacetime (Journal Article in Chaos Solitons and Fractals )

El Naschie, M.S.. (1996) Wick rotation, Cantorian spaces and the complex arrow of time in quantum physics (Journal Article in Chaos Solitons and Fractals )

El Naschie, M.S.. (1995) Statistical Geometry of a Cantor Discretum and Semiconductors (Journal Article in Computers and Mathematics Application )

El Naschie, M.S.. (1995) A note on quantum mechanics, diffusional interference and informions (Journal Article in Chaos Solitons and Fractals )

El Naschie, M.S.. (1995) On the nature of complex time, diffusion and the two-slit experiment (Journal Article in Chaos Solitons and Fractals )

El Naschie, M.S.. (1994) Silver Mean Hausdorff dimension and Cantor sets (Journal Article in Chaos solitons and fractals )

El Naschie, M.S.. (1994) Is quantum space a random Cantor set with a Golden Mean dimension at the core (Journal Article in Chaos, Solitons & Fractals )

El Naschie, M.S.. (1994) In certain “empty” Cantor sets and their dimension. (Journal Article in Chaos, Solitons & Fractals )

El Naschie, M.S.. (1994) Iterated Function Systems and the two-slit experiments of Quantum Mechanics (Journal Article in Chaos solitons and fractals )

El Naschie, M.S.. (1994) Dimensions and Cantor spectra (Journal Article in Chaos, solitons, and fractals )

El Naschie, M.S.. (1994) Renormalization semi-groups and the dimensions of Cantorian space-time. (Journal Article in Chaos solitons and fractals )

El Naschie, M.S.. (1994) Quantum Measurement, diffusion and Cantorian geodesics (Journal Article in Chaos solitons and fractals )

El Naschie, M.S.. (1994) Orbits Stability and Dimensional Cantor sets (Journal Article in Applied Mathematic Letters )

El Naschie, M.S.. (1994) Quantum measurement, diffusion and Cantorian geodesics (Journal Article in Chaos Solitons and Fractals )

El Naschie, M.S.. (1994) The Mean uncertainty and Distance Dimension of multidimensional Cantorian spaces (Journal Article in Mathematical and computer modelling )

El Naschie, M.S.. (1994) Forbidden symmetries, Cantor sets and hypothetical graphite (Journal Article in Chaos Solitons and Fractals )

El Naschie, M.S.. (1994) Dimension and Cantor spectra (Journal Article in Chaos Solitons and Fractals )

El Naschie, M.S.. (1994) Iterated Function Systems and the two-slit experiment of Quantum Mechanics (Journal Article in Chaos Solitons and Fractals )

El Naschie, M.S.. (1994) Silver Mean Hausdorff dimension and Cantor sets (Journal Article in Chaos Solitons and Fractals )

El Naschie, M.S.. (1994) Is quantum space a random Cantor set with a Golden Mean dimension at the core ? (Journal Article in Chaos Solitons and Fractals )

El Naschie, M.S.. (1994) On certain”empty” Cantor sets and their dimensions (Journal Article in Chaos Solitons and Fractals )

El Naschie, M.S.. (1994) Renormalization semi-groups and the dimension of Cantorian space-time (Journal Article in Chaos Solitons and Fractals )

El Naschie, M.S.. (1994) Average Symmetry, Stability and Ergodicity of Multidimensional Cantor sets (Journal Article in Il Nuovo cimento della Societ` italiana di fisica )

El Naschie M.S., . (1993) On certain infinite dimensional Cantor sets and the Schrvdinger wave (Journal Article in Chaos, Solitons & Fractals )

El Naschie M.S., . (1993) Internal Cantor distance and entropy of multidimensional Peano-Hilbert spaces (Journal Article in Chaos, Solitons & Fractals )

El Naschie M.S., . (1993) Penrose tiling, semi-conduction and Cantorian 1/ f spectra in four and five dimensions (Journal Article in Chaos, Solitons & Fractals )

El Naschie M.S., . (1993) Semiconductors and Cantorian spectra (Journal Article in Chaos, Solitons & Fractals )

El Naschie, M.S.. (1993) KAM Orbits and dimensional criticality. (Journal Article in Chaos, Solitons & Fractals )

El Naschie, M.S.. (1993) Cantorian Distance, Statistical Mechanics and Universal Behaviour of Multi-Dimensional Triadic sets (Journal Article in Mathematical and computer modelling )

El Naschie, M.S.. (1993) On certain infinite dimensional Cantor sets and the Schrvdinger wave (Journal Article in Chaos Solitons and Fractals )

El Naschie, M.S.. (1993) Semiconductors, Fermi statistics and multi-dimensional Cantor sets (Journal Article in Chaos Solitons and Fractals )

El Naschie, M.S.. (1993) Internal Cantor distance and entropy of multidimensional Peano-Hilbert spces (Journal Article in Chaos Solitons and Fractals )

El Naschie, M.S. . (1993) On certain infinite dimensional Cantor sets and the Schrvdinger wave (Journal Article in Chaos Solitons and Fractals )

El Naschie, M.S.. (1993) -Statistical Mechanics of multidimensional Cantor sets, Gvdels theorem and quantum space-time (Journal Article in Journal of the Franklin Institute )

El Naschie, M.S.. (1993) Quantum Mechanics, Cantorian Space-time and the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle (Journal Article in Vistas in astronomy )

El Naschie, . (1993) On dimensions of Cantor set related system (Journal Article in Chaos, Solitons &Choas )

El Naschie M.S., . (1992) Complex Dynamic in a 4D Peano-Hilbert Space (Journal Article in Il Nuovo cimento della Societ` italiana di fisica )

El Naschie M.S., . (1992) On the Uncertainty of Information in Quantum Space-Time. (Journal Article in Chaos, Solitons & Fractals )

El Naschie M.S., . (1992) Multi-dimensional Cantor sets in classical and quantum mechanics (Journal Article in Chaos, Solitons & Fractals )

El Naschie M.S., . (1992) A note on Heisenberg`s uncertainty priciple and Cantorian Spacetime (Journal Article in Chaos, Solitons & Fractals )

El Naschie M.S., . (1992) On the Uncertainty of Information in Quantum Space-Time. (Journal Article in Chaos solitons and fractals )

Brindley, J.; Kapitaniak, T.; El Naschie, M.S.. (1991) Analytic conditions for strange chaotic and nonchaotic attractors of the quasiperiodically forced Van der Pol equation (Journal Article in Physica D )

El Naschie, M.S.. (1991) Quantum Mechanics and the possibility of a Cantorian Space-Time (Journal Article in Chaos, Solitons & Fractals )

El Naschie, M.S.. (1989) On the connection between Statical and Dynamical Chaos (Journal Article in Zeitschrift f|r Naturforschung )

El Naschie, M.S.; Wu, C.W.; Wifi, A.S.. (1988) A simple discrete element method of the initial post buckling of elastic structure (Journal Article in International journal for numerical methods in engineering )

El Naschie, M.S.. (1984) Comparative perturbation postbuckling study of the elastic ring (Journal Article in Journal of applied mathematics and mechanics )

El Naschie, M.S.. (1977) An estimation of the lower stability limit of the free edge orthotropic cylindrical shell in axial compression (Journal Article in Journal of applied mathematics and mechanics )

El Naschie, M.S.. (1977) A simple finite element mechanical model for the numerical estimation of buckling loads (Journal Article in Internation Journal of Mechanical Engineering Education )

El Naschie, M.S.. (1976) Displacement field in the nonlinear theory of shells (Journal Article in Journal of the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics )

El Naschie, M.S.. (1976) Thermal initial post buckling of the extensional elastica (Journal Article in International Journal of Mechanical Science )

El Naschie, M.S.. (1976) Post critical behaviour of Beck problem. (Journal Article in Journal of sound and vibration )

El Naschie, M.S.. (1976) Imperfection sensivity and isoperimetric variational problem (Journal Article in Journal of spacecraft and rockets )

El Naschie, . (1976) A note on the conservativeness of a certain type of external pressure (Journal Article in Journal of applied mathematics and mechanics )

El Naschie, M.S.. (1975) Asymptotic post buckling solution of the ring in an elastic foundation (Journal Article in Journal of guidance control and dynamics A publication of the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics devoted to the technology of dynamics and control )

El Naschie, M.S.. (1975) Initial post buckling solution of a cracked physically nonlinear cylindrical shell (Journal Article in International journal of fracture )

El Naschie, M.S.. (1975) The role of formulation in elastic buckling and the stability of spherical shells. (Journal Article in Journal of applied mathematics and mechanics )

El Naschie, M.S.. (1975) Le role de la formulation dans distorsion elastique et la stabiliti es coques spheriques (Journal Article in Revue Francaise de Mechanique )

El Naschie, . (1975) The initial post buckling of an extensional ring under external pressure (Journal Article in International Journal od Mechanical Science )

El Naschie, . (1975) Localized diamond shaped buckling patterns of axially compressed cylindrical shells (Journal Article in Journal of guidance control and dynamics A publication of the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics devoted to the technology of dynamics and control )

El Naschie, M.S.. (1974) Exact asymptotic solution for the initial post buckling of a strut on a linear elastic foundation (Journal Article in Journal of applied mathematics and mechanics )

El Naschie, . (1974) A branching solution for the local buckling of a circumferentially cracked cylindrical shell (Journal Article in International Journal of Mechanical Science )

Posted by: John Baez on November 9, 2008 8:34 PM

Re: The Case of M. S. El Naschie

Naschie doesn’t just write hundreds of papers for his own journal. His journal also publishes lots of papers on his ‘theory’ written by other people!

Indeed, a quick search turns up 139 papers with “Naschie” in the title, abstract or list of keywords. The December 2008 issue has three. Here they are:

M. Agop, Cristina Radu, T. Bontas, El Naschie’s e(8) space–time and scale relativity theory in the topological dimension D = 3, Chaos, Solitons & Fractals Volume 38, Issue 5, December 2008, Pages 1243-1253.

Ayman A. El-Okaby, The exceptional E-infinity theory holographic boundary, F-theory and the number of particles in the standard model, Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, Volume 38, Issue 5, December 2008, Pages 1286-1291.

Ayman A. El-Okaby, Exceptional Lie groups, E-infinity theory and Higgs Boson, Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, Volume 38, Issue 5, December 2008, Pages 1305-1317.

If all these papers cite each other, they will all get a high citation index and count as ‘good papers’ to the bureaucrats who don’t know better… even if none of them make any sense!

But do they make sense?

Here’s a typical observation from the last paper: the number of symmetries of Klein’s quartic curve, counting reflections, is 336, which matches the number of independent components of the Riemann curvature tensor in 8-dimensional space, namely

8 2 (8 2 -1 )/12 =336

This is true. But is it interesting? No: the author leaves it as a piece of pure numerology.

He also claims that the ‘dimension’ of the group SL(2,7 ) is 7 (7 2 -1 )=336 . This is complete hogwash.

The applications of these numerical coincidences to physics are also nonsensical.

The paper has 42 references, almost all to other papers in Chaos, Solitons & Fractals — and over half to papers by El Naschie.

Posted by: John Baez on November 9, 2008 11:05 PM

Re: The Case of M. S. El Naschie

He also claims that the ‘dimension’ of the group SL(2,7 ) is 7 (72 -1 )=336 . This is complete hogwash.

It’s ignorantly phrased, but presumably he meant that the order is 7 (72-1)=336, which is true.

Posted by: Anonymous on November 9, 2008 11:23 PM

Re: The Case of M. S. El Naschie

Right.

Posted by: John Baez on November 9, 2008 11:44 PM

Re: The Case of M. S. El Naschie

As someone who used to work in the area of Dynamical Systems during my PhD, I’d like to say that this journal Chaos Solitons and Fractals quickly appeared to me to be full of incorrect or even meaningless papers. This name El Nashie indeed clearly rings a bell, although I had not seen he was the editor!

Let it be clear though that it is certainly not representative in any way of the applied nonlinear dynamics literature as a whole, there are much higher quality standards and results in some other journals (even if to a mathematicians’ eyes some of it is not always rigorous of course).

I’m fairly sure there exists other such scientific journals whose sole aim is to publish papers by the editors and their friends regardless of the papers correctness…

Posted by: former_student on November 10, 2008 9:39 AM

Re: The Case of M. S. El Naschie

After discovering the existence of this ignored genius through this discussion, I couldn’t resist and had a look at his work (I am so blessed by providence that my library paid Elsevier enough to give me access on line to all of this wonderful journal: Chaos, Solitons & Fractals…).

I had a look by random at three papers, and I felt really lucky: if you have the opportunity to ‘read’ the following two articles,

El Naschie, On dimensions of Cantor set related system, Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, Vol 3, no. 6 (1993)

and

El Naschie, Dimension and Cantor spectra, Chaos Solitons and Fractals, Vol. 4, no. 11 (1994)

you will see that, up to a small bunch of lines, they are exactly the same (I mean word for word). Of course this method of writing is quite efficient to reach the 300’s of published papers. Well, 300 is not that much: the guy is lazy! Or maybe repeating the same thing three hundred times is a pedagogic trick to make sure we, dummy people, understand? Apart from kidding, did someone tried to count how much times he did copy himself so faithfully?

And I have been so lucky that the ‘results’ of these ‘two’ papers seem to form the corner stone of ‘E-infinity theory’.

I am just amazed.

Posted by: Denis-Charles Cisinski on November 11, 2008 3:00 AM

Re: The Case of M. S. El Naschie

Very interesting! It’s sad enough that the fellow’s papers don’t make sense… I wouldn’t have guessed that he also plagiarized himself.

I urge everyone else with free access to Chaos, Solitons & Fractals to report on the marvelous discoveries hidden in this journal!

Posted by: John Baez on November 11, 2008 7:12 AM

Re: The Case of M. S. El Naschie

Clearly this guy has just taken the concept of the journal of stuff I like to its logical extreme.

I’ve just checked and found that NTNU has access to this journal. It also registers as “level 1” in the Norwegian rankings (there are technically two levels, with 2 being the higher, but as it is possible to have no level at all then having level 1 is still a slightly positive statement about the journal). I’ll raise this issue with the relevant people.

May I suggest something a little coordinated? Perhaps someone with the gift of the gab could draft two documents:

A standard letter to ones library protesting the inclusion of this journal.

A petition (online?) to be sent to Elsevier protesting the inclusion of this journal in its bundles.

Posted by: Andrew Stacey on November 11, 2008 8:25 AM

Re: The Case of M. S. El Naschie

This is, of course, not what I meant by the “journal of stuff I like”! The JOSIL is supposed to consist of things written by other people.

Posted by: Michael Lugo on November 11, 2008 3:18 PM

Re: The Case of M. S. El Naschie

Maricel Agop appears to have published a remarkable range of papers. Here is his home page, which is not very informative. For someone who has made such incisive contributions to so many fields, he doesn’t have much of a web presence.

http://physics.phys.tuiasi.ro/~magop/index.htm

Some highlights:

On the Cantorian Structure of Time in Relativity

Local gravitoelectromagnetic effects on a superconductor

Transition and equilibrium processes in metal-ceramic particle systems

Hydrodynamic formulation of scale relativity theory and unified superconductivity by means of a fractal string

Gravitational Hall Effect and Gravitomagnetic Dynamo

Structure of the world crystal

Posted by: Gavin Crooks on November 11, 2008 4:45 AM

Re: The Case of M. S. El Naschie

Did you say 42 references??? And 42 =7 (7 -1 ), which is clearly significant of something … about life… the Universe… and … well…

Posted by: some guy on the street on November 11, 2008 6:37 AM

Some universities give cash bonus per publication; Re: The Case of M. S. El Naschie

In my experience, some colleges and corporations give a cash bonus per publication or conference presentation, on top of travel and per diem to approved conferences. If the organization does not have someone qualified to evaluate these publications, nor has an outside evaluator, then they are incentivizing the assembly line of crackpottery.

In one unnamed university where I was for 5 semesters a highly-rated Adjunct Professor of Mathematics, and my wife is still Professor of Physics, the Dean of the College of Arts and Sciences had a total of one (1) refereed publication, on which she was the junior grad student, the authors being a Psych prof and a more senior grad student.

The dean, before she hired her lover as Assistant Dean and later her husband as Adjunct Prof. of Statistics fr Social Sciences, twice promoted a nearly illiterate Chair of Physics and Math, who (again) had only 1 refereed publication, on which he was the junior author (the 2 senior authors have dozens of legitimate publications subsequently that GoogleScholar finds).

I’m still steamed that this Chair, whose Ed.D. thesis I’ve read (and which is disproved each time that he teaches a class badly) who followed the Dean’s urging to cancel my contract, had a lavish trip to Morocco for a nonsense conference where he was the token North American (albeit he came from India). His abstract at that conference, all made-up terminology and anecdotal evidence with no valid quantitative analysis:

Rao Chekuri Nageswar

http://www.icpe2007.org/

OP18-B

Student-reasoning on the temperature dependence of the buoyant force:

pre- and post experiment

Nageswar Rao Chekuri

W******* University, 7500 Glenoaks Blvd, B******, CA 91510-7846, USA

According to the resources model of thinking, how and when an individual activates the elements of knowledge is important. Reasoning for a phenomenon is generated from these activated knowledge elements and contains abstract reasoning statements called r-prims. An individual uses these statements in explaining the physical phenomenon. This paper explores reasoning structures of the architecture and their choice of r-prims on the temperature dependence of the buoyant force pre- and post experiment.

Analysis of the data of thirty students shows eight categories of reasoning structures. The reasoning structures of the students who possess locally coherent knowledge change from pre- to post experiment, indicating that they may be in the process of making or strengthening connections between the knowledge elements. Furthermore, these students possess the required knowledge elements to perform the tasks but they do not seem to activate the elements in the right context, which confirms the resources model of thinking. The students who demonstrate local coherence do not provide valid reasoning for the

temperature dependence of the buoyant force. These students activate out of context elements, do not activate all the required elements or choose inappropriate r-prims. The r-prims these students (with local coherence) choose to explain relations between various physical quantities after the experiment are mostly different from those they choose before the experiment. One student from this group prefers normal reasoning to physics reasoning even though the latter is correct. The students who demonstrate global coherence provide valid reasoning for the temperature dependence, activate right resources in right time and their choice of r-prims are the same before and after the experiment. A skills based instructional strategy is also discussed.

One tenured professor whom I ran this past commented: “Unbelievable, unsavory, ungainly, garbage!”

But this cannot be detected by the faculty and administrators. I like the Senior VP of Academic Affairs, who has a solid PhD in English Lit from Columbia. But he and the professors with degrees in American Studies and Critical Theory and the like are all falling for a less-clever version of the Sokol Hoax.

I do enjoy teaching Math and Science in high schools, where I am a big fish in a small pond. But I still resent people who write bullpuckey and covert that, through lack of standards, into being big fish in medium ponds. And last week, he covered up the mercury spill in the lab that my wife also uses, and she had to evacuate for clean-up, while the Chair denies all knowledge of what happened in his lab while he taught.

I contend that lowering academic standards in this way is an actual physical danger to students. And why should an Ed.D. who write papers like that be supervising my wife, who has actual refereed science publications, degrees for University of Edinburgh and UNSW, Sydney, incluing a Ph.D. in Physics and post-doc work afterwards?

Posted by: Jonathan Vos Post on November 9, 2008 11:50 PM

Re: The Case of M. S. El Naschie

Its all coded secret service memos, hence the awkward insertions and unusual grammar.

Posted by: bob on November 10, 2008 3:36 PM

Re: The Case of M. S. El Naschie

There’s even a Festschrift in honour of this guy available, published by World Scientific.

Surely this should pique the interest of a journalist somewhere, it could make for a very entertaining story.

Posted by: Dan Piponi on November 10, 2008 6:15 PM

Re: The Case of M. S. El Naschie

Wow! Check out the festschrift on Google Books (just search for “El Naschie Festschrift”). It’s amazing. He sounds like quite an engaging character, and his disciples plainly adore him.

Here is the blurb from the back cover:

Space Time Physics and Fractality is an attempt to tunnel through the rigidity of it all – by turning everything into dust or smoke. These two ancient traditions are brought together here for the first time – in the spirit of Democritus and Anaxagoras. Mohamed El Naschie, the sexagenarian, is the “dust dragon”. The book contains papers by people who are infected by the same virus of desperately wanting to understand, and represents an incomparable breakthrough. Not for the feebleminded, however.

Posted by: Robin Houston on November 10, 2008 10:39 PM

Re: The Case of M. S. El Naschie

One of the essays is “Why are probabilistic laws governing quantum mechanics and neurobiology?”. That rung a bell. Remember DARPA’s completely bizarre 23 questions, including questions on subjects like “Biological Quantum Field Theory”? I can’t help wondering if some of the same people are behind both.

Posted by: Dan Piponi on November 10, 2008 11:57 PM

Re: The Case of M. S. El Naschie

“Biological Quantum Field Theory”?

Funny you should mention that.

Posted by: Blake Stacey on November 11, 2008 12:45 AM

Re: The Case of M. S. El Naschie

Hey, why are you looking at me, Blake? I haven’t done anything!

Posted by: Tim Silverman on November 11, 2008 1:13 AM

A real Festschrift!

Not only that there is a Festschrift in Honor of Professor El Naschie! There was a symposium on the occasion of his 60th birthday, organized at the “Center for Arts and Media” in Karlsruhe, Germany. Do you believe that?

The symposium announcement explains the location: “Additionally, the symposium addresses the attempt to use artistic approaches to gain knowledge on space-time and it is dicussed which connections between physics and art exists.”

The Festschrift is published by Springer! And now it comes: among the editors of the Festschrift is Otto E. Rössler. Does it ring a bell? Try Wikipedia:

“In June 2008 Rössler emerged in the public eye with an open letter[1] as one of the strongest critics of the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) proton collision experiment supervised by the European Organization for Nuclear Research in Geneva, trying to raise awareness of the possibility of creating human-made uncontrollable mini black holes with assumed exponential growth which might get trapped in Earth’s gravity due to their slowness of movement compared to the natural phenomenon of proton collisions with cosmic rays.”

They even went for the European High Court, if I remember correctly.

Posted by: Konrad Waldorf on November 11, 2008 3:53 AM

Re: A real Festschrift!

It’s a small-world network, after all.

Posted by: Blake Stacey on November 11, 2008 4:09 AM

Read the post Radosophie

Weblog: Mathlog

Excerpt: Eine Routine zur Erstellung pseudowissenschaftlicher Artikel.

Tracked: November 11, 2008 9:12 AM

Re: The Case of M. S. El Naschie

Okay, now this is getting a little weird. I thought I’d see what the citation index of this journal is, so toddled over to the AMS to find out. It weighs in at 0.13, compared to an “all journal” index of 0.25 (AMS Bull gets 1.97, Comm Math Phys gets 1.03, LMS Journal gets 0.69 (2006 figures for these)) so it’s not very high.

However … the mystery began when I flicked over to the list of articles provided by MathSciNet for this journal: chaos soliton fractal. I started looking for the articles that I’d so enjoyed, hoping to see the review that proclaimed the brilliant future of Golden Differential Geometry (I’m quite excited about that as it may make up for never getting even close to one of the Clay prizes - to discover a genuine golden manifold would be quite something). I couldn’t find it. Then, D’oh, I realised that it was too recent to be in the database so I started looking for older favourites. I was particularly interested in

From Arthur Cayley via Felix Klein, Sophus Lie, Wilhelm Killing, Elie Cartan, Emmy Noether and superstrings to Cantorian space

since I am trying to learn a little about Sophus Lie - given my geographical location. Whilst

An outline for a quantum golden field theory

ought to be a gem.

But can I find them? Sorry, Mr about-to-be-President, but “No You Can’t” (oh, and a certain Mr B. Builder would like to talk to you about plagarism).

So what’s going on? Conspiracy theorists should have a golden field day with this one.

One that I did find on MathSciNet has a fantastic title:

Elie Cartan and pan-geometry of multispatial hyperspace original article.

I don’t want to dismiss it out of hand, but the paragraph:

I must begin my critique with Descartes. His analytic geometry is a great tool, but it must not serve as a model for happenings in the physical reality, because it has terrible misgivings that have never been disclosed before. The whole nonsense concealed a part of physical reality and paved the way for some abstract algebraic alternatives to differential geometry. In order to understand that, however, I should explain the meaning of certain forgotten and/or suppressed mathematical results. It took a lot of tweaking for the PM to conceal the SSTF, which nature endorsed in many experiments [2, 3 and 4]. In order to advance physics we must remove obscurity from mathematics. Yet mathematics should rely on physics, unless it would like to become an art.

makes me wonder. I’ve scanned back through the reviews on MathSciNet and have to say that the pickings are slim. I had to go back to 2004 to find a review (there may be more recent, I wasn’t checking every entry) and even then they tend to be just quoting the summary.

My guess would be that the journal isn’t supplying the missing entries to the AMS. If the AMS were missing them out on purpose then you’d have to wonder why they haven’t made more of a fuss over the whole journal.

Just to complete the MathSciNet analysis, I searched for articles by Naschie and a few others whose articles were omitted from the lists. I’ll not spoil the surprise.

Okay, one last thing. Scanning down the list of articles I noticed a phrase that I’d seen somewhere before: Homotopy Perturbation. Every now and then I see an article on the arXiv saying that this is a load of junk: here’s some. As I know nothing about it, I generally just skim the articles and ponder. But seeing it on the Chaos list made me ponder a little more. And here’s something strange. Doing a search on MathSciNet for the words “homotopy” and “perturbation” yields 8 results. On the journal website it yields 36.

Curiouser and curiouser.

Posted by: Andrew Stacey on November 11, 2008 1:00 PM

Re: The Case of M. S. El Naschie

Andrew wrote:

May I suggest something a little coordinated? Perhaps someone with the gift of the gab could draft two documents:

1. A standard letter to ones library protesting the inclusion of this journal.

2. A petition (online?) to be sent to Elsevier protesting the inclusion of this journal in its bundles.

I think this is a good idea. Right now I’m way too busy to take the lead — could you do it?

But here’s a rough draft of a letter that could become either 1. or 2. Everyone should free to improve it and/or send it to your library or Elsevier!

To Whom It May Concern —

Elsevier publishes a journal called Chaos, Solitons and Fractals, which costs $4520 for an annual subscription and is included in many of the ‘journal bundles’ to which libraries subscribe. This journal is a farce. The chief editor, M.S. El Naschie, has published 322 of his own papers in this journal. He is writing them at a tremendous rate: for example, five are listed for the forthcoming December 2008 issue. Moreover, these papers are not good science: they consist of numerology and pseudoscience. [INSERT AN EXAMPLE HERE — SOMETHING EVERYONE CAN UNDERSTAND] For more details, see:

http://golem.ph.utexas.edu/category/2008/11/the_case_of_m_s_el_naschie.html

Chaos, Solitons and Fractals also includes many equally bad papers written by disciples of El Naschie. For example, the December 2008 issue includes three papers by other authors about El Naschie’s work. Again, these papers are little more than numerology and pseudoscience.

Given the increasing pressures on library budgets, the high price of this journal, and the utter failure of this journal to meet basic standards of good scholarship, I urge you to cease subscribing to this journal [OR: STOP PUBLISHING IT].

Sincerely,

If the reference to this blog seems like a bad idea, we could also refer to Eureka.

Posted by: John Baez on November 11, 2008 5:40 PM

Re: The Case of M. S. El Naschie

Sheffield has it too. I have forwarded John’s letter to our Department Library Rep, and will see what happens next.

This journal challenges the idea that science is more reliable than religion.

Posted by: Eugenia Cheng on November 11, 2008 6:30 PM

Re: The Case of M. S. El Naschie

I just checked MUSE and spotted it as well. I will also be contacting the library. I think we should also contact our friendly neighbourhood bloggers.

Posted by: Pieter Kok on November 11, 2008 9:02 PM

Re: The Case of M. S. El Naschie

Well, since scientific theories are always subject to contestation and overthrow, and religious beliefs held without regard to empirical evidence are in general not, religion is always going to be more *reliable* then science.

Posted by: peter on November 12, 2008 5:59 PM

Re: The Case of M. S. El Naschie

For those of you who have been unable to fathom El Naschie’s ‘E 8 theory’, here is a nontechnical summary of it provided by the man himself.

By the way, I found this in the Special Topics section of Essential Science Indicators, a website run by Thomson Reuters. Special Topics provides “citation analyses and commentary for selected scientific research areas that have experienced notable recent advances or are of special current interest”. According to them, this paper:

El Naschie, On a fuzzy Kahler-like manifold which is consistent with the two slit experiment, International Journal of Nonlinear Science and Numerical Simulation 6 (2) (2005), 95-98.

is a “hot paper”, because the number of citations it’s received lies “in the top one-tenth of one percent (0.1%) in a current bimonthly period”. So, it must be important! — regardless of whether all the citations are by El Naschie and his friends.

But let’s see what El Naschie has to say:

ST: Could you summarize the significance of your paper in layman’s terms?

The wave nature of light was established beyond any doubt by the famous interference experiment of T. Young. Take a torch and put a large piece of dark cardboard with two adjacent tiny holes in front of it. Go in a dark room and project the result on the wall. With some luck, and after manipulating the various distances between the torch and the cardboard, as well as the cardboard and the wall, one will notice concentric rings of dark shadows and light on the wall.

In simplistic terms, light plus light does not result always in a more intense light but could lead to darkness. In scientific terms, lights must have a wave form and can annihilate each other when out of phase, just as opposing water waves, out of phase, annihilate each other.

However, ensuing technical developments which enabled the experimentalist to emit a single light packet, or what Newton called “corpuscles,” coupled with the advent of quantum mechanics, showed, without any ambiguity, that light behaves also as particles. In fact, light seems to be a particle when emitted, as well as when it arrives at the detection screen, although it seems to propagate as a wave.

This is what Louis de Broglie—the winner of the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1929—formulated mathematically, and called “material waves,” and is known as wave-particle duality. However, material waves defy, not only classical Newtonian mechanics, but also common sense. The paradoxical nature of the two-slit experiment is explained in numerous popular scientific writings and books and may be summarized in the inescapable conclusion that a photon or an electron—or, for that matter, any quantum particle, including a Buckyball molecule (C60)—could be said to have passed through both slits in the screen simultaneously without splitting in two.

A fictitious macroscopic analogue of this experiment would be equivalent to a skier sliding on both sides of a tree simultaneously without hitting the tree or injuring himself. A parody on this situation is shown in Fig. (1).

Through my work on E-infinity theory, I realized that, in a spacetime manifold which is infinite-dimensional, a dimensional fractal, such as a classically impossible skiing trick, is possible in fractal land. The extra dimensions are the logical loop holes. For instance, in two dimensions, by putting both our hands on a table, it is impossible, no matter how hard we try, to bring our left and right hands to be congruent. However, by turning one hand in the extra third dimension, we can rotate it and bring it to exactly cover the other hand on the table.

This magic can be continued in E-infinity, in a manner of speaking, indefinitely, so that in E-infinity spacetime, as in its fuzzy Kähler model, we can do infinitely many more things that we cannot do in the 3+1 Euclidean spacetime of our daily experience. Thus, I started constructing a space based on the two-slit experiment, which is infinite-dimensional in the fractal self-similar hierarchal sense, when observed with quantum mechanical high resolution. However, at our low resolution, low-energy scale of classical mechanics, the very same spacetime manifold looks like an ordinary 3+1=4 dimensional spacetime.

Proceeding in this way, we found that the space of E-infinity theory which is an infinite dimensional but hierarchal fractal called a Cantor set, may be modeled by a classical geometrical structure called K3 manifold, provided this manifold is made fuzzy. The mathematical theory of fuzzy sets is highly developed and used extensively in many practical and engineering problems.

Fractal geometry is, by its very nature, fuzzy, and that is how we were able to give K3—which is used in string theory for other purposes—a fuzzy outlook. Proceeding in this way, we did not only give a geometrical topological rational explanation for the two-slit experiment, but were also able to determine the particle content of this spacetime manifold. This led to the startling conclusion that the standard model should have, besides the 60 particles (or degrees of freedom) believed to have already been discovered experimentally, a maximum of additional particles equal to 9.

These 9 particles are thought to be 1 graviton and 8 Higgs degrees of freedom, of which, either 1 or 5 should manifest themselves as particles. Thus, starting from a fundamental quantum experiment, we were able to make predictions involving all the fundamental interactions, including gravity.

Posted by: John Baez on November 11, 2008 6:16 PM

Re: The Case of M. S. El Naschie

From the “New Hot Paper Comment” quoted above:

Thus, I started constructing a space based on the two-slit experiment, which is infinite-dimensional in the fractal self-similar hierarchal sense, when observed with quantum mechanical high resolution. However, at our low resolution, low-energy scale of classical mechanics, the very same spacetime manifold looks like an ordinary 3+1=4 dimensional spacetime.

Proceeding in this way, we found that the space of E-infinity theory which is an infinite dimensional but hierarchal fractal called a Cantor set, may be modeled by a classical geometrical structure called K3 manifold, provided this manifold is made fuzzy.

The fractal dimension of the Cantor set is

log2 log3 ˜0.6309 .

E-infinity theory must only hold true for very small values of infinity.

Posted by: Blake Stacey on November 11, 2008 8:43 PM

Re: The Case of M. S. El Naschie

Dear Prof. Baez

I was surprised at the tone and the language with which you have allowed the discussion of the work of Dr. Mohamed El Naschie to slip into. None of you know the man and I certainly do not. Nonetheless the principle of any fair investigation particularly dealing with science is that the accused is innocent until proven guilty. This was the America which I grew up in until a kind of lynching justice was introduced in the tradition of the Wild West to our country. Luckily America has proven itself yet again capable of recovering from maladies inflicted on it by ignorance, hatred and discrimination. If you did vote for Obama then all I would like to ask you is to review the situation and get all the facts scientific and otherwise right and then you may publish them in your blog. It is not possible to expect any less from a respectable Professor in a respectable u

University like your good self.

Jeremy Keyes

Posted by: Jeremy Keyes on November 11, 2008 6:47 PM

Re: The Case of M. S. El Naschie

It’s more a case against Elsevier’s business practices than it is against El Naschie personally. A strong case has been made that the journal is a sham and that quality control in this case has completely broken down, and yet the journal is foisted upon university libraries at a significant cost. Why should academics accept that?

All the same, El Naschie doesn’t come out smelling too pretty as a scientist. Even if you don’t know a thing about the relevant science, the fact that this individual writes an article which repeats verbatim an earlier one (save a few lines) should sound alarms. What’s he up to here, and how is it that he is the chief editor of an Elsevier journal?

Posted by: Todd Trimble on November 11, 2008 8:38 PM

Re: The Case of M. S. El Naschie

Indeed, it’s interesting to recall how this started: John did in fact assume the journal was innocent. He then proved it to be guilty.

Posted by: Eugenia Cheng on November 11, 2008 9:36 PM

Re: The Case of M. S. El Naschie

The whole setup on this site looks very much like an insinuation motivated by a vendetta aiming at El Naschie. Someone has hired a hit man and the hit man hired the n-Category Café. This is the last time I will open this blog.

J. Morality

Posted by: Josh on November 11, 2008 7:45 PM

Re: The Case of M. S. El Naschie

Hmm. The previous two messages come from Cairo.

Posted by: David Corfield on November 11, 2008 8:15 PM

Re: The Case of M. S. El Naschie

I meant the (4 to date) messages by Josh and Jeremy Keyes have IP addresses located in Cairo, coincidently where El Naschie claims a visiting professorship.

Posted by: David Corfield on November 11, 2008 10:18 PM

Re: The Case of M. S. El Naschie

El Naschie writes, among other things:

The extra dimensions are the logical loop holes. #

J. observes

Someone has hired a hit man […] #

Reminds me of the plot of Aki Kaurismäki’s I hired a contract killer.

Posted by: Urs Schreiber on November 11, 2008 8:24 PM

Re: The Case of M. S. El Naschie

Someone has hired a hit man and the hit man hired the n-Category Café.

Does anybody know the going rate for character assassination? If, hypothetically, I were a hit man hired to take out Ed Witten, how much would I have to pay the n-Category Café to get them to say mean things about him before I struck?

Posted by: Anonymous on November 11, 2008 11:53 PM

Re: The Case of M. S. El Naschie

We have a sliding scale of charges according to how difficult the mark is to take out. Plus expenses, sundries, wear and tear on keyboards, etc. And we reserve the right to turn down any job that isn’t enough fun.

For Ed Witten? Frankly, if you have to ask, you can’t afford us.

El Naschie—not so much.

Posted by: Tim Silverman on November 12, 2008 2:18 PM

Re: The Case of M. S. El Naschie

Phew.. wash the socks before you use them for puppets!

Posted by: John Armstrong on November 11, 2008 9:30 PM

Re: The Case of M. S. El Naschie

Further to my earlier comment, I just received a long email from a Scientific American guy, Trevor Howard. I do not know if it is his real name or not but what he said in his email sounds quite real and I thought John Baez should know about it. Summarizing the main points, he seems to have dug out the following:

First, Mr. Zoran Skoda seems to have gotten it all wrong. There are 17 two and three stein spaces. This is not counting 1 stein space because 1 stein space is an Einstein space according to modern classification. The spaces correspond to what Howard calls compact and non-compact exceptional Lie groups. He said this is textbook post graduate courses in mathematics.

Second, the word simplictic is a typo and it should be symplectic and Mr. Skoda wanted to make a meal out of it.

Third, Nash formula used by El Naschie is correct as long as we are talking about simply connected spaces. For 1 and 2 dimensions, the embedding is 7 and 17 respectively as given correctly by El Naschie.

Fourth, Mr. Skoda did not understand or pretended not to understand how El Naschie used Von Neumann and Connes’ work. He intentionally picked one of the shortest technical notes written by El Naschie on the subject. A technical note by definition leaves space for misunderstanding due to brevity. But this is the nature of a note. Howard said for those familiar with El Naschie’s work everything is sequential, logical and correct.

From the above and having just received another email from someone working in Elsevier attesting for the extent of jealousy of certain quarters of Mohamed El Naschie’s success outside the mainstream, I must indeed conclude that the intention behind Mr. Zoran Skoda’s writings is far from being objective or good. Indeed it contains more slander than science and that brings me back to my first comment to Prof. John Baez and my hope he distances himself from the like. It is said that flattery gets you anywhere but jealousy will get you nowhere. The comments I read on this site are almost by the same man or group of men or women and they don’t express jealousy only but they reflect souls consumed by hatred and that reminds me of those who killed Martin Luther King and those who tried to prevent Obama from winning. Obama will change the world and I sincerely hope that this El Naschie or someone like him will help in developing physics.

Jeremy Keyes

Posted by: Jeremy Keyes on November 11, 2008 8:23 PM

Re: The Case of M. S. El Naschie

because 1 stein space is an Einstein space…

Also, ist ein Steinraum ein Einsteinraum?

You are Alan Sokal and I claim my five pounds.

Also, though I can’t believe my work-avoidance has reached the stage where I’m reading this particular comment,

For 1 and 2 dimensions, the embedding is 7 and 17 respectively as given correctly by El Naschie.

Yeah, right, you obviously need 7 dimensions to embed a one-dimensional Riemannian manifold… and 17 dimensions to embed a simply-connected 2-dimensional one. Very exotic these objects, aren’t they?

Posted by: yemon choi on November 11, 2008 8:45 PM

Re: The Case of M. S. El Naschie

Dear Yemon,

I give you my word of honor that I am not Alan Sokal. It is not a hoax. It is very serious and honest scientific communication. I have now contacted the E-Infinity fan club in China and they gave me the reference to the book where it is all written. It is a post-graduate textbook. The pun between the English and German meaning may have been intentional or unintentional. Prof. Stein was a famous geometrist, I was told. They divide his stein spaces in 2 and 3 categories. It was then probably a surprise that the one stein space is an Einstein space and hence the pun which you found reminiscing of Alan Sokal. I was given much evidence by the club that Mohamed El Naschie is a highly honorable, respectable and a kind man. The book on stein spaces is actually devoted to modern Riemannian geometry. In a recent paper the classification was extended to multiply connected spaces. I was told that El Naschie found baffling results related to the wrapped around universe of John Pierre Luminet in France and is related to the work of William Thurston on the topology of three manifolds. You can find all these buzz words on the internet and all what I ask is when you do find that I was not telling you any fibs that you should revoke your previous statement and write something polite and complimentary. Thank you.

Jeremy Keyes

Posted by: Jeremy Keyes on November 11, 2008 9:59 PM

Re: The Case of M. S. El Naschie

write something polite and complimentary

I’m not Yemon, but let me have a try:

I wish to offer Dr. El Naschie my sincere congratulations on his impressive number of publications (counted with multiplicity). I can only imagine how much work it must have taken him to process all those submissions as editor. And the papers themselves are so imaginative! Clearly this man is not bound by the same constraints as mainstream researchers.

I am also touched by how many vocal supporters have abruptly visited this blog. It is surely a sign of Dr. El Naschie’s profound intellectual influence on his admirers that they all sound so similar.

Posted by: Anonymous on November 11, 2008 10:50 PM

Re: The Case of M. S. El Naschie

I have now contacted the E-Infinity fan club in China and they gave me the reference to the book where it is all written. It is a post-graduate textbook.

Out of curiosity, what is the book in which it is all written? Please pass the reference on to us. I’m honestly curious as to what one, two, and three Stein spaces are. (I assume it is indeed a garbled version of a real mathematical idea, like El Naschie’s other buzzwords, but I’m puzzled as to what mathematicians call it.)

Thank you!

P.S. How does one join the E-Infinity fan club? Is it an actual organization, or just an informal group?

Posted by: Anonymous on November 11, 2008 11:07 PM

Re: The Case of M. S. El Naschie

“Jeremy Keyes” wrote:

You can find all these buzz words on the internet and all what I ask is when you do find that I was not telling you any fibs that you should revoke your previous statement and write something polite and complimentary.

I guess we should all try to be polite, even to people struggling very unsuccessfully to project a false identity … but complimentary to people on the grounds that they use buzz words that can be found on the internet is a bit of a stretch.

This was the America which I grew up in until a kind of lynching justice was introduced in the tradition of the Wild West to our country.

If you really must use a pseudonym, embellishing it with a fake biography that suggests a different first language than your real one is not a smart move.

Posted by: Greg Egan on November 11, 2008 10:59 PM

Hopefully polite, if not complimentary

Greg: thanks for putting it better than I could, regarding the relative obligations to politeness and praise.

To be fair, it is consistent that someone could grow up in the United States but have not picked up enough American English idiom to avoid sounding stilted…

I think Jeremy’s reluctance to address my implicit point about 7 and 17 being unlikely values for the “correct” extremal dimensions of embedding, and fondness for politically-flavoured non-sequiturs, is unfortunate. The issue of who he might be, or why his English usage is at odds with what’s implied by his name and backstory, is perhaps something on which we are unlikely to get confirmation or make progress.

I am also bemused as to why a “book on Stein spaces” would be “devoted to Riemannian geometry”, since the two live in very different categories.

Posted by: yemon choi on November 11, 2008 11:17 PM

I’ll admit my oversights, how about reciprocating?

Having spent the afternoon chasing the bubble under the wallpaper in my own work, and feeling yet again the urge to avoid work…

For anyone still reading this thread in the hope of mathematical elucidation: in the interests of fairness, the confusion over Stein spaces starts from a confusion/difference over terminology. What I and some others would understand by a Stein space is a certain object from complex geometry. What seems to be meant by 2-stein and 3-stein spaces are indeed notions from Riemannian geometry, defined in terms of certain conditions on the Riemannian curvature of the manifold in question. (Link requires MathSciNet access, I’m afraid.) Also, “zwei-stein” und “drei-stein” sind noch die Wortspiele…

It would of course have been helpful if those quick to accuse some of us of malice and “playing the man, not the ball” could have pointed out more precise references, or perhaps – shock horror! – given an informal explanation of the terminology. Otherwise it’s left to idlers such as myself to hunt down the terms.

Now if I were a sunny and optimistic chap, I might hope that one of the numerous doughty defenders could clarify the puzzlement of John B and myself about the claimed “Nash formula” which gives 7 for n=1 and 17 for n=2. Or even why the golden ratio has been singled out from the Mauldin-Williams paper, when it doesn’t correspond – as I’ve seen falsely claimed in some accounts of E-infinity ramblings – to a triadic Cantor set, and is only one of several Hausdorff dimensions attained a.s. by various limiting sets.

Posted by: yemon choi on November 12, 2008 10:31 PM

Re: The Case of M. S. El Naschie

Greg wrote:

I guess we should all try to be polite, even to people struggling very unsuccessfully to project a false identity … but complimentary to people on the grounds that they use buzz words that can be found on the internet is a bit of a stretch.

Heh. I’m reminded of Roman Jackiw, the otherwise excellent MIT physicist who defended his act of passing the Igor Bogdanoff’s nonsense Ph.D. thesis by saying “It showed some originality and some familiarity with the jargon. That’s all I ask.”

I was astounded. Remarks like that are the best possible way to convince the public that all science is just a bunch of baloney — a game of words. It’s not. So when we see something that is, we need to say so.

Posted by: John Baez on November 12, 2008 12:01 AM

Re: The Case of M. S. El Naschie

Jeremy wrote:

I have now contacted the E-Infinity fan club in China and they gave me the reference to the book where it is all written. It is a post-graduate textbook.

Hi there, Jeremy from Cairo! How many people are there in the E-infinity fan club? Who is the club president? Do they have a club house? Maybe the next time I’m in Shanghai I can visit it!

Also: what’s the title and author of this postgraduate textbook? I’d love to learn more about ‘1-stein spaces’, ‘2-stein’, ‘3-stein’ spaces and so on.

Google only shows a few references to them, like this:

M. S. El Naschie, One and two-stein space hierarchies in high energy physics, Chaos, Solitons & Fractals Volume 36, Issue 5 (2008) 1189-1190.

This is a two-page paper where he lists 17 spaces along with names of simple Lie groups, adds up the dimensions of these spaces, gets the number 686, and notes that this is 5 ×137 +1 .

No wonder he can publish papers so fast! Mine take much longer to write. But I guess if you have a great idea, there’s no need to pad it out with a lot of pointless verbiage.

Indeed, El Naschie never says in this paper what a ‘1-stein’ or ‘2-stein’ space actually is! But some of the dimensions he lists, and the Lie groups associated to them, remind me of some famous symmetric spaces. For example, the last one has dimension 128 and it’s associated to E 8 . The second to last has dimension 112, and it’s also associated to E 8 . You can see these here. But, there are only 12 exceptional Riemannian symmetric spaces, not 17. So, I’m curious what’s going on here.

Much to my delight, I see Naschie’s paper contains some references to what seem like actual math papers about ‘2-stein spaces’:

M. J. Druetta, On harmonic and 2-stein spaces of Iwasawa type, Diff. Geom. Appl. 18 (2003), 351-362.

K. Sekigawa and E. Vanhecke, Volume-preserving geodesic symmetries on four-dimensional 2-stein spaces, Kodai Math J G (1986), 215-224.

I’ll have to look at these and figure out what’s going on.

However, Yemon Choi is correct and you are wrong about at least one thing: you do not need 7 dimensions of Euclidean spaces in which to isometrically embed a compact Riemannian 1-manifold. 2 dimensions is clearly enough.

This is a fancy way of saying that you can draw a circle of radius in the plane: you do not need 7 dimensions to draw it!

Anyone who understands Nash’s theorem should find this quite obvious.

I also can’t believe you need 17 dimensions in which to isometrically embed any compact Riemannian 2-manifold. I believe fewer dimensions will suffice.

And I hope you realize I am being extremely charitable here! El Naschie does not even speak of “isometric” embeddings: he says “Nash Euclidean embeddings”, which I was kindly struggling to interpret in some sensible way.

So, even with charity this comment of his makes little sense.

More importantly, the whole paper which I discussed in this blog entry, and all the other papers I’ve read by El Naschie, consist mainly of numerological pseudoscience.

It is said that flattery gets you anywhere but jealousy will get you nowhere.

It’s true: I’m jealous that El Naschie can publish 5 short papers a month that make almost no sense and publish them in his own journal, while I struggle for years to write long papers that make sense and publish them in other people’s journals.

If I’d been smarter, I would have published my work in Chaos, Solitons & Fractals.

Posted by: John Baez on November 11, 2008 11:28 PM

Re: The Case of M. S. El Naschie

Jeremy wrote:

Further to my earlier comment, I just received a long email from a Scientific American guy, Trevor Howard. I do not know if it is his real name or not but what he said in his email sounds quite real and I thought John Baez should know about it.

Hello again, Jeremy from Cairo!

Thanks, but I’m pretty sure there’s nobody named Trevor Howard who writes for Scientific American! There is a famous guy named Trevor Howard, but he’s mainly famous for being a British actor! So you have to be very careful on the internet — not everyone is who they pretend to be!

Posted by: John Baez on November 11, 2008 11:40 PM

Re: The Case of M. S. El Naschie

This site is supposed to be dealing with mathematics, physics and philosophy. I haven’t seen much of any in the comments about El Naschie. Ironically, I know about John Baez and his work from Mohamed El Naschie. Mohamed always says he is a very imaginative mathematical physicist as opposed to theoretical physicist. Mohamed has always described himself as a theoretical physicist who just happens to believe that set theory in connection with group theory will hold the final answer for quantum gravity and he claims to have seen many promising ideas from Baez’ work. I think that is the main difference between El Naschie and others, if I may say so. Mohamed tries to embrace and unify. The others are continuously segregating and discriminating. What they don’t understand is by definition wrong. What they don’t know about is by definition not needed. What they are not familiar with is inessential. In this sense I am addressing John Baez for whom I still have a great deal of respect. You see John the opposite of truth is yet a deeper truth. This is the depth implicit in Mohamed El Naschie’s use of non conventional mathematics and that is why he is right. By contrast the opposite of a fallacy will always be the truth and therefore all these fallacious arguments used against El Naschie will fail. The main idea here is not mine. It is due to Niels Bohr. He told the young Heisenberg what I have just said albeit in another context.

The sad thing about what you have written and the way you have written is that it has nothing to do with science. This is envy from the fact that he is independent and that he is an Editor in Chief of a journal which he founded two decades ago when no one believed that nonlinear sciences, chaos and fractals are anything more than a fashionable mathematical craze that will last for a short while. Imaginative scientists always complain about old boy’s networks, cliques and oppressive establishments. However, when someone who got the opportunity and the capability to circumvent those hindrances and present things in new and unusual ways, then suddenly you try to get at him and help the establishment to destroy him. No matter how long I live, I will never understand this folly and this dark side of the human soul. I pray to God that I will be spared experiencing how it must be to be full of such jealousy.

Yours sincerely,

B. Cherikov

Posted by: Cherikov on November 11, 2008 9:27 PM

He does nanotech, too!

Looks like he’s an expert in nanotech, too.

Posted by: Mike Stay on November 11, 2008 10:06 PM

Re: The Case of M. S. El Naschie

I knew the journal name Chaos, Solitons and Fractals sounded familiar! Turns out, it’s where one of the (nonsensical) “peer-reviewed papers” which creationists like to trumpet as signalling the death of “Darwinism” was published. The paper in question cited Wikipedia for its references and got worse from there.

Posted by: Blake Stacey on November 11, 2008 10:57 PM

Re: The Case of M. S. El Naschie

cited Wikipedia for its references and got worse from there

This is true, and it was a valuable public service for Chu-Carroll to go through the flaws in such detail. However, I have to warn people not to take Chu-Carroll’s commentary on incompleteness and paradoxes very seriously.

Posted by: Anonymous on November 12, 2008 12:29 AM

Re: The Case of M. S. El Naschie

Thanks for the reminder; see the comments of the aforelinked post for additional discussion on this point.

Posted by: Blake Stacey on November 12, 2008 12:57 AM

Re: The Case of M. S. El Naschie

Yemon Choi wrote:

Having come here from Zoran Skoda’s comments in the other thread, and having had a brush with some of El-Naschie’s, erm, “theories”, albeit second-hand and perhaps with me misunderstanding a great man, I’m almost relieved to see that what you quoted doesn’t involve the golden ratio.

I’m afraid it does pervade the great man’s work.

F’rinstance, down thread I see that there is an alleged link between the two-slit experiment, Cantor sets, and K3 manifolds. Now I’d hope that someone with mathematical training would go: in this story, what is so special about K3? why should a homological/Hodge condition link up to the construction of certain Hausdorff dimensions?

I would hope so. But it’s almost disappointing when you go read the actual papers by El Naschie: they don’t even make a half-hearted case for a connection between the ideas linked in the titles! One wonders if he knows the difference between a Hodge condition and Hodgkin’s disease.

To take another example, when I read the title of this…

Ayman Elokabya, Knot wormholes and the dimensional invariant of exceptional Lie groups and Stein space hierarchies, Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, in Press, corrected proof, available online 14 July 2008.

… I start hoping for some crazy story connecting wormholes, knot theory, exceptional Lie groups and Stein spaces. But then the abstract dashes my hopes — it becomes clear we’re in for something far more silly:

The present short note points out a most interesting and quite unexpected connection between the number of distinct knot as a function of their crossing number and exceptional Lie groups and Stein space hierarchies. It is found that the crossing number 7 plays the role of threshold similar to 4 and 5 in E-infinity theory and for the 11 crossing the number of distinct knots is very close to

4 a¯ 0 +1 =548 +1 =549

where 4 a¯ 0 is the inverse integer electromagnetic fine structure constant. This is particularly intriguing in view of a similar relation pertinent to the 17 two and three Stein spaces where the total dimension is

? 1 17 Stein=5 a¯ 0 +1 =685 +1 =686

as well as the sum of the eight exceptional Lie symmetry groups

? i=1 8 |E i|=4 a¯ 0 =548

The slight discrepancy of one is explained in both cases by the inclusion of El Naschie’s transfinite corrections leading to

? i=1 8 |E i|=4 (137 +k 0 )=548.328157

and

? 1 17 Stein=5 (137 +k 0 )=685.41097

where k 0 =? 5 (1 -? 5 ) and ?=(5 -1 )/2 .

Zounds! One doesn’t know where to start.

But, I like the sheer audacity of someone who publishes a paper hinting that there are 8 exceptional Lie groups: E 1 ,E 2 ,E 3 ,E 4 ,E 5 ,E 6 ,E 7 and E 8 .

And I have to admit this paragraph from the actual paper has a certain charm:

In the present work, we utilize, following a proposal by El Naschie, the Banach-Tarski theorem as well as the Conway table for the relation between the crossing number of a Knot and the number of distinct Knot and to argue that this number corresponds to the total number of massless gauge bosons at the ultra high energy vacuum. Noting that crossing number 7 is a critical saturation point with 7 distinct Knot types, one is almost taken by surprise to note that for crossing number equal 11, we have 549 distinct Knot types. This 549 is conjectured to play the same role of 496 in super string theory and 548 in E-infinity theory. In fact for a fractal Knot the exact ‘fuzzy’ or fractal value for the number of Knot should be exactly

N(Knot)=(4 )(a¯ 0 )=(4 )(137 +k 0 )=(4 )(137.082039325 )=548.328157

Posted by: John Baez on November 12, 2008 12:49 AM

Re: The Case of M. S. El Naschie

Why do a small number of papers in that journal have a “Communicated by (name of professor)” note while most of them don’t? Why do the papers only have “Accepted (date)” and no “Received (date)”? Does it mean they have undergone practically no peer-review?

Posted by: Anon on November 12, 2008 1:30 AM

Re: The Case of M. S. El Naschie

Why do a small number of papers in that journal have a “Communicated by (name of professor)” note while most of them don’t?

This varies in meaning from journal to journal. Most commonly, it means that it was handled by a particular associate editor (or the equivalent). I wouldn’t read anything into this.

Why do the papers only have “Accepted (date)” and no “Received (date)”?

Publishing these dates is typically done as a service to the authors, to help them establish priority. The only reason I can think of to omit just the “received” date is to obscure how long the refereeing took, because the journal is either very slow or very fast. I imagine the latter is true here.

Does it mean they have undergone practically no peer-review?

It’s certainly a suggestive observation.

Posted by: Anonymous on November 12, 2008 1:47 AM

Re: The Case of M. S. El Naschie

The problem is delicate here. Due to the high IF and high position in different ranking systems, Chaos Solitons Fractals has attracted many authors in the recent years. They publish serious works too, alongside with this nonsense. So you can not just throw the whole journal out of the window. Browsing the issues I’ve found many respectable people among the authors. This whole thing is just weird.

Posted by: freia on November 12, 2008 4:14 AM

Re: The Case of M. S. El Naschie

Very interesting!

I regard Elsevier as a parasite on the scientific community: we do free work for them, writing papers and refereeing them, while they reap enormous profits, sucking money from university libraries with their monopolistic journal-bundling.

To me, Chaos, Solitons & Fractals illustrates many of the worst things that can happen under this system. Since the journal isn’t openly accessible, its problems fester under cover of darkness. If the editor had put his papers on the arXiv, their flaws would have been quickly spotted. Advocates of for-profit journals boast of the virtues of peer review — but it turns out the best place to hide bullshit is in a refereed journal that’s not open-access! The Bogdanoff brothers took advantage of this too.

Bad work in bad journals would not be much of a problem if libraries could easily refuse to buy those journals. But the practice of journal bundling makes it hard. It’s like buying a bushel of apples: you have to take the rotten one with the rest.

So: I want people to complain to Elsevier about this mess, and try to cancel subscriptions to Chaos, Solitons & Fractals.

Elsevier, of course, will want to save this journal, for the large amounts of money it brings in: thousands of dollars a year for each subscription. To succeed, they will need to make drastic changes. There is no way they can continue with the current editor and avoid becoming a public laughingstock, now that the rot is visible for all to see.

So, either the journal will go under or get better. No matter what happens, it’ll be a great improvement over what we see now.

Posted by: John Baez on November 12, 2008 4:50 AM

Read the post Chaos bei Elsevier

Weblog: Mathlog

Excerpt: Pseudowissenschaft in "Chaos, Solitons and Fractals"....

Tracked: November 12, 2008 6:11 AM

Re: The Case of M. S. El Naschie

Hi John,

It’s good to see this weirdness coming to light. I’ve been inundated in comments and emails for the past year, ostensibly from El Naschie’s fans. This FQXi forum is representative:

http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/107

This wasn’t even supposed to be a forum for discussion, but just a place for me to put interview questions. El Naschie was brought up by commenters 118 times! I was a bit flustered, and curious what the heck was going on, since this guy’s work looked like nonsense. How could he have so many fanatic disciples? The commenters names provided were: David, A. Pisko, N. Eisfeld, C. Kovadic, K. Willmore, Ray Munroe, R. Marek, Dietmar Kohlhass, Jonathan Schiffer, Robert Fisher, L.M. Cran, Marcel Kavorkian, Dr. L. Marek-Crnjac, B. Kerek, Bob Meyers, A. Kasim, Sonja Kaliski, Gerhard Apeltrauer, Ken Blanchard, Steve Perkins, A. Scott, Doug B., M. Steffan, Rodney, and Brian P. Are they even real people? They effectively hijacked the forum I had created. As a bit of a reclusive scientist type, I don’t like angry mobs with pitchforks, so I just abandoned the forum to this madness. I have to wonder though… El Naschie might be rich and/or well connected – is he paying people, indulging in massive sock puppetry, or what is going on? Thanks for digging into this matter, it’s been bugging me for a while. Here’s a quote from the last comment to the forum:

“Mohamed El Naschie had it much easier. He was a well established professor of engineering before he jumped into fractal spacetime via fractals and nonlinear dynamics. He was not subjected to the hassle of trying to publish a paper. Now it is too late for them to stop him. You can be sure there is a lot of intrigue going on and some have tried their best to curtail Chaos, Solitons and Fractals and reduce it to a run of the mill journal.”

Posted by: Garrett on November 12, 2008 6:39 AM

Re: The Case of M. S. El Naschie

Have had a look at the thread you linked to Garrett, and am starting to feel hungover…

Some more acolytes seem to have come out to play earlier this year, too (see the comment thread)…

If I’d realised this would happen, I might have been less sanguine back in the days when I first came across this and thought “time will tell, no point in getting high blood pressure over it…”

Still: one thing that has come out of this, after chasing one of the links John provided somewhere else in the thread, is that at least I know why the golden ratio is being invoked so often and so enthusiastically. That is, it was originally there for a reason. I don’t think it’s a particularly good reason, but at least it wasn’t picked from a random list of constants; the use the poor beast has then been put to is in my humble opinion less impressive, shall we say.

I’ll put the details upthread, appended to the relevant comment.

Posted by: yemon choi on November 12, 2008 8:26 AM

Re: The Case of M. S. El Naschie

The catastrophy is that this man in telling the media in the Arab world that he will get the Nobel prize soon. and he was hired in important positions in Egypt and Saudi Arabia. it makes me really sad.

Posted by: Ali Obeid on November 12, 2008 12:22 PM

Re: The Case of M. S. El Naschie

Dear Prof. Baez,

I have written to you in good faith and have given you the benefit of the doubt. I am not amused about the racial and national innuendos implicit in your letter. I am taken aback by your proposition that using three lettered- words and vulgar language is a pre-qualification for obtaining the US citizenship. Do I have really to say high knot gravity dude and all this baloney to become a Yankee? The great thing about America is that it takes a Hispanic Jew with the name Baez, adjoin to it John and he becomes a full member of its big society; a phrase coined by President Johnson, if you do remember. Let me guess, you have a problem with the name Mohamed. Please correct me if I am wrong. You also have a slight problem with Egypt. Is that correct? Finally, you are protecting a couple of friends who have complained to you because they were caught plagiarizing Mohamed El Naschie’s work. Please allow me to be more accurate. They plagiarized the work of English Canadian Physicist, Garnett Ord and French Cosmologist Laurent Nottale and few other names working in fractal spacetime and Mohamed El Naschie being merely one of the key players in this field. Besides if Mohamed El Naschie’s work is so bad, why do they plagiarize it and publish it in modified form in Physics Review and Classical and Quantum gravity. Maybe you need to ask Garrett. He may help.

Presumably you have been asked to lend a hand in suppressing Mohamed El Naschie’s publications being the most active in the group so that your friend can claim his work as their own, naturally after the necessary rephrasing, polishing and decoration. You are supposed to build a mob to intimidate Elsevier, collect signatures and make petitions all similar to the way which enabled Bush win in Florida in 2004. You call it a Case and you are trying to concoct a case and I have the feeling that you and your clique are a case. Again this is the scientific conjecture based on information given to me from reliable sources in France, Canada, China and Israel. If I am wrong, I apologize in advance. But to be quite candid, I would be very astonished if anybody can persuade me now that I am wrong. I have been told by people in the know that Mohamed El Naschie’s central contribution to high energy physics was the introduction of a transfinite manifold. It is a physical concept. In fact I should say it is a geometrical topological concept in the sense of Minkowski and Einstein. I hasten to say it is also a relatively old concept and the main idea came from Richard Feynman, Garnett Ord, Laurent Nottale and their 19th century predecessors. Prof. Marek-Crnjac has refuted the false allegations of numerology in a short article entitled “On the vital difference between number theory and numerology in physics”. It would help if you read this work if you are serious. The charge numerology is of course a convenient and cheap shot which is easily made even against string theory and loop quantum gravity. But after reading what you have written, I am sure you had the result and verdict long before you read a single work of what Prof. El Naschie has written. Prof. El Naschie’s contribution as I said earlier is that he made the earlier concept of a transfinite manifold as spacetime computationally viable. Instead of working with a complex spacetime foam as Steve Hawking tried to do and failed, he used the simplest there is among fractals namely, a triadic Cantor set. Prof. Ji-Huan He from Shanghai explained this point in the most admirable fashion. A cantor set is a compromise between the discrete and the continuous. It is a completely disjointed set of points and yet it has the cardinality of the continuum. By taking infinite number of such sets but giving them different weights like in Feynman’s path integral, he obtained a transfinite hierarchical infinite dimensional cantor sets which are random in nature with a finite expectation value as a dimension. He found three dimensions, the topological dimensions of exactly 4, the Hausdorff dimension of 4.23606799 and a string dimension slightly less than 4, namely 3.81966. The intersection of all three dimensions produces the equivalent logarithmic term in the renormalization equation of unification while certain averages give us the dimension at the threshold of the Planck energy scale which is 4.019999. The golden mean comes naturally into this process exactly as it comes naturally into the Platonic bodies – only here connected to higher dimensionality. All this info has been given to me by Prof. He and the Chinese Chapter of E-Infinity theory, as they call themselves.

I am not a technical scientist. Science is too narrow for me. It is just one minute aspect of a far greater manifold, to use your language. Science is beautiful like Baudelaire’s poetry, Goya’s paintings and Mozart’s Requiem. But Baudelaire wrote Le Fleur de Mal and Goya painted the Savage who was eating his children and Mozart’s Requiem reflects infinite sadness. This less positive side of the human soul has been reflected more than I can take on this site and hence I am signing off and you will not hear from me again. You have mentioned Trevor Howard the English actor, so maybe you know Marlon Brando, the American actor and I advise you to see his film “The Ugly American” and I like to advise you also that the Ugly American has died forever and that there is a new dawn starting in America to light the whole world. It is a dawn of fairness, love and brotherhood of man which Obama is bringing with him not only for America but for the whole world. This is something you guys cannot even start to grasp.

Jeremy Keyes

P. S. In your writing you have been hinting somewhere that you were in contact with Nobel Laureate Gerardus ‘tHooft and you implied that he told you Prof. El Naschie’s work is irrelevant and should be ignored. Now if this is true, then of course I am ready to question his work and what could be better for everybody that you publish this statement given to you by him. After all Prof. ‘tHooft, and this is common knowledge, knows Prof. El Naschie very well, so his opinion really matters. Let me tell you now and here that you have been inventing all what you have said and that you never contacted Prof. ‘tHooft and that you are only trying to make yourself important and lend your non-existent arguments credibility using the good name of others. Being a fair person by nature, I must forewarn you that Prof. ‘tHooft is known to abhor blogs and those who run it.

Posted by: Jeremy Keyes on November 12, 2008 1:26 PM

Re: The Case of M. S. El Naschie

“big society”

It’s “great society”; I know that and I’m not even American.

Posted by: Anonymous on November 12, 2008 1:52 PM

Re: The Case of M. S. El Naschie

But to be quite candid, I would be very astonished if anybody can persuade me now that I am wrong.

Yes, we’d all be very astonished too.

Posted by: Greg Egan on November 12, 2008 2:41 PM

Re: The Case of M. S. El Naschie

I’m afraid that the Cafe is in danger of being run over by fanatics (on both sides?). Perhaps laying down some ground rules regarding what constitutes an acceptable comment is warranted?

For example,

1.) No comments about religion or politics. There are other forums for that.

2.) Comments should address the subject of math, physics, or philosophy only

In fact, there are probably more appropriate places to address the issue of this discussion, as important as it is, than the Cafe.

I know I for one am not interested in this topic and would hate to have to unsubscribe from the RSS feed.

I don’t think the Cafe should be used to promote a political agenda, whether that be your views on Publishers, or your views on a particular scientist. There are other places to do that if you wish to do so.

I love following the Cafe and hope that it can maintain high standards.

Posted by: Eric on November 12, 2008 4:06 PM

Re: The Case of M. S. El Naschie

I don’t think the Cafe should be used to promote a political agenda, whether that be your views on Publishers, or your views on a particular scientist. There are other places to do that if you wish to do so.

I suppose one might consider open access to be a “political agenda”, but if so, then I’m all for politics in this blog.

As for views on a particular scientist, discussing the merits (or lack thereof) of particular people’s work is a crucial aspect of science/mathematics.

I do agree that it is important to stick with the established facts. For example, it would be wrong to say definitively that “El Naschie is a scientific fraud.” Instead, one should be careful to say “El Naschie is either incompetent, a hoaxer, or a scientific fraud.” Maybe even a mixture.

Incidentally, I’m amused by the suggestion that there are unnamed “more appropriate places” for this discussion and that it compromises the blog’s high standards.

Posted by: Anonymous on November 12, 2008 4:41 PM

Re: The Case of M. S. El Naschie

I’ll take ‘Jeremy’ at his word that this is his last post here, and leave his diatribe unanswered and all its errors uncorrected. But I plan to delete all future entries of that nature, and all replies to them. I’m only interested in entries that really shed light on what’s going on at Chaos, Solitons & Fractals.

It’s somewhat enlightening to see the same ‘attack of the sock puppets’ that Garrett Lisi witnessed on the FQXi forum. It shows that someone is upset and unable to make a strong scientific case for El Naschie’s theories. But, we get the idea.

I intend to continue discussing the problems with scholarly communication on this blog, as I’ve done all along — for example in A Plea to Save New Scientist, Journals Hire “Pit Bull of PR”, and so on. I think it’s important that the situation with Chaos, Solitons & Fractals be understood, and I think this blog entry is a fine place to do it. But a long drawn-out brawl clearly isn’t the way to do it, so we won’t have that.

Posted by: John Baez on November 12, 2008 5:00 PM

Re: The Case of M. S. El Naschie

On a more serious note, how many good papers (if any) are in Chaos, Solitons, and Fractals? Can anyone propose some examples? Freia mentioned above seeing some serious names among the authors.

I don’t know whether the journal is 95% garbage, 50% garbage, or 5% garbage (although I suspect the garbage level is above 5%). This is relevant to the question of what to do about the journal and how much there is to salvage. If we had the power to get Elsevier to do something about this, what would be the right thing to do?

Posted by: Anonymous on November 12, 2008 5:30 PM

Re: The Case of M. S. El Naschie

At least the issues of 1998 contain several papers of serious topologists like Przytycki, Hass, Lin, Wu, Bleiler, Scharlemann, Boileau, Fourrier. But they seem to be mainly intended as survey papers, containing little genuine research.

Posted by: Thilo on November 12, 2008 5:49 PM

Re: The Case of M. S. El Naschie

On a more serious note, how many good papers (if any) are in Chaos, Solitons, and Fractals? Can anyone propose some examples?

Rather to my astonishment (because the journal is

generally worthless), I can actually think of one: K. Young and J. P. Crutchfield, “Fluctuation Spectroscopy”, 4 (1993): 5-39. (Disclaimer: Jim was my thesis adviser.) I have no idea what it was doing in such low company.

Posted by: Cosma Shalizi on November 13, 2008 4:36 PM

Summary

So, let me review (as best as I can understand).

We have a crackpot.

Said crackpot is editor of a journal — possibly, at one time, a journal which carried serious work, but now entirely given over to publishing crackpottery.

Said journal is published by a well-known, if somewhat evil, publishing house.

1) is not terribly shocking. There are plenty of crackpots, and we mostly just try to ignore them. 2) is also not terribly shocking. There are a number of examples of formerly respectable journals, which now publish mostly sludge. In this case, it’s not clear to me that Chaos, Solitons, and Fractals was ever really respectable. At best, we’ve seen some evidence that — in its early days — some respectable people were not-yet aware that it was ill-advised to publish there. 3) is the most serious bit. If Elsevier were not evil, would we proceed differently?

As to the El Naschie sockpuppets, I have one word for you: stop. You have been warned.

— The Proprietor

Posted by: Jacques Distler on November 12, 2008 6:35 PM

| PGP Sig

Re: Summary

Speaking of sock-puppetry, I’ve been poking around in the Chaos, Solitons and Fractals archives and am intrigued by one Ayman A. El-Okaby who has recently published three short articles in the journal. All utilize Naschie’s E-infinity theory and read very much like Naschie’s work. The author line in his articles says he’s associated with Alexandria University but he’s not on the faculty list on their website (or findable with a Google search) and he has a yahoo e-mail address. I looked for El-Okaby’s publications elsewhere and couldn’t find any. Curious.

Posted by: Bill Jacobs on November 12, 2008 8:20 PM

Re: The Case of M. S. El Naschie

I think you should lower the temperature: I mean cool it a bit. Someone I know closely who works in Elsevier’s Amsterdam office told me that El Naschie is definitely retiring on November 17th, 2008. Obviously your pressure has taken its toll on Elsevier with its well known appetite for money and they have been forced to sheepishly give in with their tail tucked between their legs.

Posted by: D. Holmes on November 12, 2008 7:55 PM

Re: The Case of M. S. El Naschie

There’s no sign of this happening. People who have asked Elsevier have not been told that El Naschie plans to resign. It sounds as if Elsevier is aware of the problem, but moving very slowly — if at all — to deal with it.

So I think a little heat could be a good thing.

Posted by: John Baez on November 20, 2008 6:30 PM

Re: The Case of M. S. El Naschie

One astounding thing I noticed from El Naschie’s sock puppets is the excellent use of the English language, and strong grammar. This is at least editor level writing if I may say.

Posted by: Tom Tom on November 12, 2008 8:54 PM

Re: The Case of M. S. El Naschie

I think you should lower the temperature and cool it a bit. Someone I know well who works in Elsevier’s Amsterdam office told me that El Naschie is definitely retiring on November 17, 2008. Obviously your pressure has taken its toll on Elsevier with its well known appetite for money and they have been forced to sheepishly give in with their tail tucked between their legs.

Posted by: D. Holmes on November 12, 2008 9:01 PM

Re: The Case of M. S. El Naschie

Does anyone know the title of the doctor’s Ph.D. thesis? I couldn’t find any information from the library catalog of the University College London, UK. Could it be possible that the online catalog does not contain information on older dissertations?

The professor, however, is the author of a 700-page book entitled “Stress, Stability and Chaos in Structural Engineering: An Energy Approach,” published by McGraw-Hill. It’s been cited by seven other textbooks in similar subject areas, according to Amazon.

Posted by: Anon on November 12, 2008 9:43 PM

Re: The Case of M. S. El Naschie

Research theses from all the colleges of the University of London are listed in the catalogue of the Library of the University of London, and many of these theses are kept there. I have previously had no trouble finding PhD theses going back as far as 1957. The theses catalogue is here.

Yet, I can find no listing of a research thesis for any author with surname as follows:

El Naschie

Naschie

Nashie

Nachie

Elnaschie

Elnashie

Elnaschie

According to this site, M.S. El Naschie’s PhD was entitled: “The role of formulation in elastic buckling and stability theory”

I can find no listing of any thesis with this title. I have also searched on the key words “elastic”, “buckling” and “stability”, and again not found any listing for this thesis, or something like it.

Perhaps someone else may be able to find the thesis in the University of London catalogue.

The thick plottens …

Posted by: peter on November 13, 2008 8:23 PM

Re: The Case of M. S. El Naschie

What a wacky situation.

El Naschie also appears to occasionally spell his name “El Nashie” — and he’s on the international board of the Tenth international symposium on the Frontiers of Fundamental and Computational Physics.

best,

Duncan

Posted by: Duncan Mortimer on November 13, 2008 7:33 AM

Re: The Case of M. S. El Naschie

M. S. El-Naschie is actually affiliated to Cairo University’s department of Astronomy. I’m sure he is really an adviser to the Egyptian minister for scientific research (which is not a good sign).

I’m unable to really judge El-Naschie’s work in theoretical physics, but I attended a couple of seminar talks he gave in Cairo and I was not convinced of the value of his work because of: 1) the vague formulations, 2) his sensitivity to any comments (or even questions) from the audience.

As many have commented the journal Chaos … contains some good work. But I have seen some rubbish in it (with one paper containing even a wrong definition of Julia sets).

Posted by: Hany M. El-Hosseiny on November 13, 2008 10:22 AM

Re: The Case of M. S. El Naschie

I think the good people at Math Reviews must have had a clue about El Naschie for quite a while. Randomly picking reviews, I mostly find either just a summary taken from the paper, or the text { This paper will not be reviewed. }

The first real review I found was amusing. It is for the paper “A note on quantum gravity and Cantorian spacetime”, MR1428296 (98b:83036) (no prizes awarded for guessing which journal). The review is too short paragraphs. The second paragraph says: “This paper seems to the reviewer to contain no mathematics.”

Posted by: Harald Hanche-Olsen on November 13, 2008 5:42 PM

Re: The Case of M. S. El Naschie

There are plenty of papers in the journal on differential equations (bifurcations, stability, limit cycles) that are OK.

Posted by: frei on November 13, 2008 7:27 PM

Re: The Case of M. S. El Naschie

What is funny on Chaos, Solitons and Fractals tables of contents is the occasional ERRATUM. It gives me a Cargo Cult feeling… I looked at this one: Erratum to: On Milnor seven dimensional sphere, El Naschies e theory and energy of a Bianchi universe; [Chaos, Solitons and Fractals 19 (2004) 17]

“The formula given by (19) should be replaced by the correct one

(n/2)*(3n+11).

I would like to thank M.S. El Naschie for bringing this error to my attention.”

Posted by: J. Dumas on November 13, 2008 8:35 PM

Read the post Postmoderne matematikk?

Weblog: Skepsis blog

Excerpt: Dette er kanskje litt på siden av de temaer som er vanlige på denne bloggen, men ikke helt. Det dreier seg om forskningsjuks. Vi har vel fortsatt Sudbøsaken friskt i minne, og det har vært noen høyt profilerte tilfeller av...

Tracked: November 13, 2008 11:27 PM

Re: The Case of M. S. El Naschie

About Chaos and others…

it’s a journal in which it’s easy to find papers that have already been published elsewhere.

E.g. Hegazi, A.; Mansour, M.

Irreducible representation of the quantum group E_q(2). (English)

[J] Chaos Solitons Fractals 12, No. 9, 1687-1690 (2001).

is not different from

Hegazi, A.; Mansour, M.

Irreducible representation of the quantum group E\sb q(2). (English)

[J] Int. J. Theor. Phys. 39, No. 8, 1967-1971 (2000).

(and such irreps were known since the first half of the 90ies). Luckily my dep. does not subscribe to it…

Posted by: chik67 on November 16, 2008 5:08 PM

Re: The Case of M. S. El Naschie

And it doesn’t take much research to realize that the guy probably has a fake Ph.D. thesis, the title and year of which no one can keep straight. As pointed out by a commenter, this site lists the title as “The role of formulation in elastic buckling and stability theory” (1973).

However, in his paper is the following citation:

[1] El Naschie MS. The role of formulation in elastic buckling. PhD thesis, Civil Eng. Dept., University College, University of London; 17 June 1974.

Neither title can be found in the university’s database.

What are we going to do with individuals like him? More importantly, what is Elsevier going to do about such a messy (chaotic?) journal? Will they change its name? Perhaps the credentials of editors should be checked to see if they are—at the very least—who they say they are.

At any rate, I feel sorry for the innocent who have published decent papers in it.

Posted by: ST on November 16, 2008 5:11 PM

Read the post Editing for Elsevier

Weblog: Uncommon Ground

Excerpt: I think we can all agree that finding a way to open access to research is an undeniable public good. Many of us can also agree that while immediate open access may not be financially sustainable, open archiving is very...

Tracked: November 17, 2008 8:14 PM

Re: The Case of M. S. El Naschie

To Prof. John Baez

almost one year ago we have sent to Elsevier about this issue concerning

the “Chaos, sollitons and fractals” Journal and his editor in Cheif El naschie

Here is the letter

Dear publishing responsible

We are writing you about the Journal of Chaos , solitons and Fractals and his editor in chief El Naschie. We are group scientists from different countries working in theoretical high energy physics and as a matter of fact we noticed that El Nashie the editor in chief the above mentioned journal has been publishing an incredible large number of papers in this journal, where he claims to have solved all the problems of particle physics using his E-infinity approach based on fractal geometry. We have looked at those papers very carefully and found them unscientific and meaningless, completely irrelevant to science and particle physics in particular. Moreover, those papers are not only without sense but complete junk. On the top of that El Naschie has published in 2008 ( in one month and 5 days) 33 papers, that is one paper per day!!, which scientifically unacceptable. Not only that, we discovered that most if not all the papers published in this journal by different authors have no scientific sense and are really junk and rubbish. What most authors, who publish in this journal, do is either to refer to El Nashie works or invent a theory title and attribute to El Naschie, and then write anything, in many cases they just copy formulas from books and write them and publish the same article several times by changing the introduction and the conclusion.As an evidence we attached some papers published in this journal and we invite you to ask any respectable scientist to evaluate those papers. Indeed it is not even needed to have a big knowledge of physics and mathematics to realize that the content of those papers is complete non sense.This journal has become preferred place of scientific junk.We wonder how a respectable and leading publisher which publishes prestigious journals like Nuclear physics, physics letters.etc…accept such misconducting of this journal by his editor in chief El Nashie. In fact, it is very weired and strange that El Naschie publishes all his papers in his journal and this does not happen in any respectable journal. Indeed we have nothing personal against this guy, but this journal as we said has become sort of source of rubbish and junk and in our view a source of jokes. We are afraid that the publisher Elesvier will be participating and playing an unintentional role in fostering and delivering junk science in the globe, in contrast to supposed policy of Elsevier. Best Regards

Here is the reply:

thank you for your letter.

We shall review the issues that you raise carefully. Thank you for bringing your concerns to our attention.

Sincerely,

David Clark

David Clark

Publishing Director, Physics, Mathematics, Computer Science and Astronomy

Elsevier B.V. Radarweg 29, Amsterdam 1043 NX

The Netherlands

Tel + 31 20 485 2451 | Fax + 31 20 485 2370 | david.clark@elsevier.com | www.elsevier.com

But at the end nothing happened

Posted by: Any one on November 19, 2008 11:39 PM

Re: The Case of M. S. El Naschie

If that’s true, it reflects extremely badly on Elsevier. For me the most important aspect of the whole affair is not El Naschie’s conduct, but that Elsevier are printing this junk and we’re paying for it.

The most charitable thing one might have said about Elsevier was that they were unaware that Chaos, Solitons and Fractals had become a crackpot publication. But now it appears that they don’t even have that excuse.

Posted by: Tom Leinster on November 19, 2008 11:41 PM

Re: The Case of M. S. El Naschie

Yesterday, I sent an email to David Clark of Elsevier to ask him if he did indeed respond a year ago to a letter written by a “group scientists from different countries working in theoretical high energy physics”. I included the addresses of blogs (including this one) that mentioned this letter, in case he would like to comment on it. It’s only been 24 hours, but I haven’t received a reply yet.

Posted by: ST on November 20, 2008 8:58 PM

Re: The Case of M. S. El Naschie

A journalist pointed out that there’s now an email address where you can submit papers for publication in Chaos, Solitons & Fractals. Until a couple of days ago, you had to send them by snailmail to an address in Amsterdam. As of today, you can still see the old webpage in the Google cache. I’m not sure what this change portends.

The new email address is the closest known thing to an email address for El Naschie.

Posted by: John Baez on November 22, 2008 2:08 AM

Re: The Case of M. S. El Naschie

Here’s an update on the El Naschie story.

An entity claiming to be ‘Joan Morris’, a ‘legal advisor’ for El Naschie, sent several emails to U. C. Riverside threatening to sue the university and me.

You can see these emails below. You may enjoy listing reasons why they do not appear to be the work of an actual lawyer.

Most notably, ‘Joan Morris’ claims she tried to post several comments on this blog defending her client, and complains that they were deleted. While I have indeed deleted several rude emails from El Naschie sockpuppets, I have saved them all, and none were posted under the name ‘Joan Morris’. So, either El Naschie has a legal counselor who seeks to defend her client’s good name by posting rude pseudonymous comments on this blog… or there is some other explanation for what is actually going on.

Here are the emails:

From: Joan Morris

To: Elizabeth Lord

Sent: Friday, November 14, 2008 1:12:41 AM

Subject: John Baez

Dear Dr. Lord:

I am writing to you after giving up on the n-Category café blog which is managed by one of your Professors namely John Baez who as one of the sites says is a one man internet army. The title of the blog is “The Case of M. S. El Naschie” and on the first page of the blog it says that its scope is mathematics, physics and philosophy. What we have here is nothing but slander and character assassination against a distinguished Physicist, namely Prof.. Mohamed El Naschie.

Every time I try to put the record straight by posting a positive comment on this blog about Prof. El Naschie in response to the slanderous attacks against him, immediately my comment is blocked and if by mistake it gets posted, then it is immediately deleted because of the positive nature of the comment I am posting in relation to the person in question. Meantime, the blog is posting all the negative comments by the clique affiliated to Baez and allowing them to dash out their hatred and viciousness against El Naschie. What is the rationale or basis behind all this? It has really gone overboard and in effect this is tantamount to a racially motivated attack.

What is absolutely shocking and repugnant is the function of this blog and how it has been used to character assassinate a well-known scientist and it is verging on blackmailing and extortion. In short it is slanderous and that should not be the purpose of a scientific blog associated to your respectable University. A scientific discussion should focus on scientific facts and should avoid character assassination. There is no scientific objectivity whatsoever in this blog.

I trust you will read the comments on the blog and will be able to conduct an immediate investigation into this very serious matter. Upon reading it, I am sure you will attest that this is a flagrant and vicious campaign. It is a matter of record that Mr. Baez is connected to people who have plagiarized the work of Prof. El Naschie. We are hopeful you can put an end to this vicious and unfounded campaign which is unbefitting any good and respectable University, let alone UC Riverside.

We hope to hear from you soon and in the meantime we will be calling on the US Ambassador in Egypt as well as our lawyers in the USA . This man has exceeded all Ethics Codes in the USA and will be held liable for slander and for using the University blog to conduct his racist and hate campaign.

Yours truly,

Joan Morris

Legal Advisor

It took a while for UCR to reply, since they needed to consult a lawyer.

From: Joan Morris [mailto:morris.joan59@yahoo.com]

Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2008 1:23 AM

To: Elizabeth Lord

Subject: Fw: John Baez

Dear Dr. Lord:

I was hoping to hear from you re: the email I sent you regarding the n-Category cafe (email below) run and managed by one of your Professors in the Mathematics Department, John Baez. To my disappointment, I have not received any feedback from you. I am still hoping you will have the time to investigate this matter because it constitutes a flagrant character assassination against the person and credentials of a well known scientist. The blog commentators have gone as far as casting doubt on his Ph.D. credentials. This has really exceeded all limits and as I have told you before, we are taking this matter to court. The continued smearing cannot go on unchecked. There is a definite hidden agenda and we were hoping that you do not subscribe to such slander since the name of UC Riverside is involved.

Best regards,

Joan Morris

Legal Advisor

Eventually Elizabeth Lord replied. She pointed out that the blog is not run by UCR, and that the issues appear to relate to academic freedom rather than any breach of policy.

From: “Joan Morris”

To: “Elizabeth Lord”

Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2008 03:26:39 -0800

Subject: n-Category cafe and Dr. Baez

Dear Dr. Lord,

It is needless to say I am deeply disappointed from your answer. The implication is that your faculty can enjoy the prestige of the good name of your University to lend their criminal defamation campaign credibility. You are also wrong in thinking that these are only scientific issues and different opinions. Dr. Baez knowingly alleged that Prof. M. El Naschie does not have a Ph.D. and that he is a fraud and an impostor. This is not a scientific debate. This is a blatant criminal defamation. You will be hearing from a law firm in the US and we will be making UC Riverside and Dr. Baez separately and jointly liable for damage and aggravated damage.

Yours sincerely,

Joan Morris

(Of course I never alleged that El Naschie did not have a Ph.D; nor did I use the words ‘fraud’ or ‘impostor’.)

Posted by: John Baez on November 25, 2008 9:36 PM

Read the post The Case of M. S. El Naschie, Continued

Weblog: The n-Category Café

Excerpt: According to an Elsevier spokesman, M. S. El Naschie is retiring from his job as chief editor of Chaos, Solitons & Fractals.

Tracked: November 27, 2008 5:55 PM

**Part 2 The Case of M. S. El Naschie, Continued**

Richard Poynder is a freelance journalist who has written extensively about the issue of open access. He’s not afraid to tackle tough stories — people have tried to intimidate him with threats of lawsuits, but he’s pulled through.

Lately he has been investigating the case of M. S. El Naschie. Yesterday an Elsevier spokesperson informed him that El Naschie’s retirement will be announced in the first issue of Chaos, Solitons & Fractals in 2009.

According to the Elsevier spokesperson, El Naschie is retiring to spend more time with his sockpuppets.

The last sentence up there was just a joke, okay? Just a joke! Whenever some guy gets booted out of a job, it seems a ‘spokesman’ says he wants to ‘spend more time with his family’. But El Naschie prefers to take over blogs with crowds of imaginary commenters who trumpet the virtues of his theories or — lately, at a Telegraph article about Garrett Lisi — attack John Baez, the internet blog thug. If he stops editing Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, he’ll have even more time for this.

Here’s what the Elsevier spokesperson actually said: “as a former editor El Naschie will no longer be involved in editorial decision making for the journal”.

(I’m curious to see if other editors of this journal, like the infamous Laurent Nottale, stay on.)

There’s also a story about El Naschie in today’s issue of Nature:

Quirin Schiermeier, Self-publishing editor set to retire, Nature 456 (2008), 432.

Some tidbits from this article:

El Naschie rejects any charges of sloppy peer review. “Our papers are reviewed in the normal way expected from a scientific international journal published by a reputable international publisher,” he told Nature in an e-mail signed by P. Cooper, who claimed to be a spokesperson for the editorial board of Chaos, Solitons and Fractals. (The Nature article actually says “claimed to be”.)

On November 2th, Elsevier’s director of corporate relations, Shira Tabachnikoff, wrote to Nature saying: “Dr El Naschie’s retirement as Editor-in-Chief of Chaos, Solitons and Fractals will be announced to readers in the first issue of 2009. Elsevier and Dr El Naschie have been in discussion for quite some time about the details of his retirement and the transitional arrangement for papers under review.”

In a separate e-mail Tabachnikoff wrote: “[We are] committed to supporting our editors in maintaining high standards for both the editorial and peer-review process. At times there may be discussions about particular scientific issues and fields, even at the level of individual editorial decisions. That is a part of the normal process of scientific publishing.”

El Naschie defended the journal’s publication record, saying: “We put more emphasis on the scientific content and the originality of the papers and slightly less emphasis on prestigious addresses and impressive affiliations.” The article then goes on to raise questions about El Naschie’s own claimed affiliations.

The article also mentions Zoran Škoda’s troubles with El Naschie: “In May, Škoda sent letters to members of the journal’s editorial board asking whether they agreed with El Naschie’s editorial practices. In return, he says, he and his institute director received a letter, signed by a P. Green who identified himself or herself as a legal adviser to the editorial board, threatening legal action should Skoda continue sending “defamatory” letters.”

I think Elsevier needs to do better than this to resuscitate the reputation of Chaos, Solitons & Fractals. For the chief editor to publish hundreds of papers in his own journal and then defend their scientific quality with threats of lawsuits and an army of sockpuppets — is that “part of the normal process of scientific publishing”?

And these aren’t just ordinary papers. Just this month, El Naschie published a paper in Chaos, Solitons & Fractals called Fuzzy multi-instanton knots in the fabric of spacetime and Dirac’s vacuum fluctuation. In this paper, he finds an “incredible correlation” between particle physics and the results of “ingeniously simple” experiments with knotted lengths of rope! This is either the biggest discovery since antimatter, or part of the goofiest episode in physics since the Bogdanoff affair. Whatever it is, it’s not “part of the normal process of scientific publishing”.

But let us be thankful for any step forwards. Happy Thanksgiving!

Posted at November 27, 2008 4:40 PM UTC

**Comments on part 2**

32 Comments & 1 Trackback

Re: The Case of M. S. El Naschie, Continued

Well I am glad something got done. I did not know the journal, and mostly all I have to go on is the comments of a great many scientists and mathematicians here and there on the blogosphere, but it sounds like it was long overdue. I also have to say that it if all the things I’ve heard are true, then it does not seem right to me that Elsevier has dealt with the matter as if he is just “retiring in the normal course of events”. As a member of the mathematical community, I would expect Elsevier to issue a strong apology for the error in its managerial duties, that this matter was allowed to go on for so many years.

It should be made clear that he is not retiring of his own accord, but is being asked to step down by Elsevier. Without such a statement by Elsevier, and assuming all the things I have read about the journal Chaos, Solitons and Fractals are indeed true, I have to question the integrity of Elsevier on this matter.

Posted by: Bruce Bartlett on November 28, 2008 1:58 AM

Re: The Case of M. S. El Naschie, Continued

Regarding the paper “Fuzzy multi-instanton knots in the fabric of spacetime and Dirac’s vacuum fluctuation” linked to by John above, my favourite part is this:

The dimension of a Lie symmetry group could be viewed as a measure of the complexity of its manifold

which makes the Lie group R n arbitrarily complicated (pick e.g. n=Graham’s number). More complicated even than E 8 , which is piffling easy at only 248 dimensions.

Posted by: David Roberts on November 28, 2008 6:18 AM

Re: The Case of M. S. El Naschie, Continued

One of the recurring defenders of El Naschie seems to be Ayman Elokaby (University of Alexandria). I googled this and I found he even managed to put something on the Arxiv (http://arxiv.org/abs/0709.2394), before publishing it in his friend’s journal!

How did this pass? The guys was using a yahoo.com email account? I remember having a hard time with the arxiv just because my institution’s email address didn’t have an “.edu” ending.

Oh, well …

Posted by: Felipe on November 28, 2008 3:17 PM

Re: The Case of M. S. El Naschie, Continued

Fascinating. That paper on the arxiv mentions a student of El Naschie’s named Nasr Ahmed, now at Newcastle. Here’s his webpage there, which contains links to the first two issues of the “postgraduate magazine” for the School of Mathematics and Physics. Ahmed seems to be the driving force behind the magazine.

But here’s the good part: both of the first two issues have pieces about … wait for it … E-infinity/El Naschie-ism. This stuff is contagious!

Posted by: Graham on November 28, 2008 6:39 PM

Re: The Case of M. S. El Naschie, Continued

I’m curious about Ayman El-Okaby. He published 3 papers in the December 2008 issue of Chaos, Solitons & Fractals. I discussed them here and here.

His ideas are so strongly influenced by El Naschie that I’m almost tempted to believe he actually is El Naschie under another name. However, he makes some mistakes El Naschie doesn’t. For example, he thinks there are 8 exceptional Lie groups: E 1 through E 8 .

In the paper you mention, he lists his affiliation as the Department of Physics, Faculty of Science, Alexandria University, Egypt. I see nobody of this name is listed among the staff of the physics department of this university.

This naturally raises my suspicions. But there’s a curious comment from him here (search for ‘Ayman Elokaby’). It has a plaintive tone which suggests a real person behind it — someone very impressed by El Naschie, but still worried that El Naschie could be wrong.

I have no desire to pester Ayman Elokaby if he’s a real person.

Posted by: John Baez on November 28, 2008 6:49 PM

Re: The Case of M. S. El Naschie, Continued

Editors who found journals have more right to publish their own pieces in it than other editors, but five in one issue is clearly way over the top. I also agree that it is way overpriced.

I note that substantial parts of the journal are handled by associate editors, who have generally followed accepted standards and practices. I am aware of this having published three papers in the journal in its economics section in 1994, 1996, and 2003. The latter was part of a conference proceedings, and I had the opportunity to meet El Naschie then. I found him to be a very engaging individual, but I am in no position to judge the quality or veracity of his various publications, although I rather enjoyed his papers back in 1994 on empty Cantorian spaces. For a good decade the economics section was edited by the very capable Tonu Puu. He is not doing that anymore, having retired from his position at Umea University in Sweden.

I have not read the journal in recent years. I am sorry to read of these problems with it. Clearly it is time for El Naschie to step down, willingly or not.

Posted by: Barkley Rosser on November 28, 2008 4:59 PM

Re: The Case of M. S. El Naschie, Continued

Editors who found journals have more right to publish their own pieces in it than other editors, but five in one issue is clearly way over the top.

That’s an odd line of reasoning. I could probably be persuaded to agree that “founding editors might deserve relaxing of some procedural stuff applying to others” (eg, rules like “if we don’t receive an updated version of your paper dealing with referee comments in x months you have to start the submission process again” might be lengthened), but surely they deserve no privileges in terms of technical correctness, interestingness and novelty. Even ignoring the monetary costs of the journal, a journal is implicitly promising that, in the view of top class professionals, all the papers in there are papers that it would be worth a specialists time reading.

Even without making any judgement on the correctness of his work, the points about non-novelty ranging from rearranging the same ideas into multiple papers to the extent of actual self-plagiarism of entire articles haven’t, AFAICS, been addressed by defenders. These are surely much more clear cut problems.

Posted by: bane on November 28, 2008 5:47 PM

Re: The Case of M. S. El Naschie, Continued

Editors who found journals have more right to publish their own pieces in it than other editors, but five in one issue is clearly way over the top.

Au contraire, I would have thought that journal editors, whether founding or not, should either not submit papers to their own journals, or if so, ensure that procedures exist for such papers to be reviewed and acceptance decisions made by independent, anonymous others, working at complete arms length from the editor concerned.

Posted by: peter on November 28, 2008 6:52 PM

Re: The Case of M. S. El Naschie, Continued

Regarding the matter of what journal editors should do or not do, I should confess that I edit a journal, an Elsevier one even, the Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization. I am its second editor, and I have abided by the rule of not publishing any of my own papers since I took over editing it in 2001, except for some book reviews.

However, my predecessor, Richard H. Day, published several papers in the journal he founded, with one of them, Bulls, Bears, and Market Sheep, 1990, with Weihong Huang, being a very widely cited paper and very useful for understanding the current financial crisis. He works on nonlinear dynamics and when he founded the journal very little of this sort of thing was being published in the then established economics journals. His 1990 paper with Huang happens to be the first demonstration of how chaotic dynamics could occur in a speculative bubble.

I think there is a kind of tradeoff here. I often read of people wanting “stronger” editing by journal editors, editors who will see beyond narrow-minded referee comments to publish genuinely innovative papers. However, it is my observation that one tends to see such “strong” editing in journals edited by their founders, especially when the journal and the editor have a strong identity, and this seems to be correlated with them publishing some of their own papers in their own journals. I think this was the case with Day and the journal I now edit, which most view as a successful journal that he built up.

Clearly the problem is when this gets out of hand. That would definitely seem to have been the case with El Naschie. If one publishes papers by oneself in a journal one edits, it should be done so infrequently, not even close to once an issue, and certainly not five times in one issue.

I might add another oddity I observed about El Naschie. In the early years of the journal, back when I read it on a semi-regular basis, he was listed as being at Cambridge University. He stopped listing himself as that about the time I met him, and when I asked him about Cambridge I got a pretty vague reply. I noticed that even in that now-deleted Wikipedia entry there was no mention of any connection of his with Cambridge. So, more fuel for the fire.

I would also say that I did try to read some of his later papers. I found his 1994 ones on empty Cantorian spaces interesting, but I found myself always running into complications when I read his later papers, arguments that seemed odd, although, again, I do not consider myself to be in a position to judge that work ultimately.

Posted by: Barkley Rosser on November 28, 2008 8:18 PM

Re: The Case of M. S. El Naschie, Continued

Dear Barkley Rosser -

Thanks for your interesting comments on this thread. Here’s a reply I received — either from a fan of El Naschie, or El Naschie himself. I have been deleting posts of this sort because unfortunately they all violate the rules of this café. However, it seems worthwhile to exhibit a sample. I’ve deliberately picked the most interesting and least offensive of the lot — not the one that compares me to a monkey, not the one that compares me to Adolf Hitler, and not the one that threatens to sue me. This one merely calls me a thug and claims I’m trying to extort money from Elsevier.

IP Address: 75.125.166.36

Name: A.Kayam

Email Address: kayam_a293@yahoo.com

Dear Barkley: We know from Shahriar that you are a decent man and a poet. How on earth can you get entangled with these hooligans of the n-Category café? When Baez found no success in science proper, he turned out to become an internet thug launching campaigns against rich publishers and demanding protection money. This is not the environment that a man like you should be involved in. And why dont you ask your best friend Tonu Puu what he thinks of Chaos, Solitons and Fractals. He said in writing that this is the most exciting project in his life that he has ever been involved in. And again M. El Naschie did not publish 300 papers, he published over 900 papers. He doesnt hold the record in publishing in his own journal. The record holder is Prof. Leon Chua from University of Berkeley. His journal is published by World Scientific. The second is Naifeh. His Chaos and Bifurcation Journal was published by Kluwer and now by Springer If every editor in chief who publishes in his journal resigns, we will end up with no publications.But John Baez intention is extortion and obtaining money from Elsevier and other publishers. I must really say he is succeeding and one good thing which might come out of all that maybe the end of commercial publishing and better still the end of learned society publishing. Read the book: Faster than the Speed of Light where Physics Review is referred to as Physics Refuse and he called its Editorial Board the Physics Refuse Mafia. M. El Naschie is guilty of one thing: he is a gentleman who entered a profession where the word gentleman is foreign.

I’m interested in the claim that El Naschie has published 900 papers. Is there any evidence for this?

I’m also mildly interested in the claim that El Naschie does not hold the record for publishing papers in his own journal.

Posted by: John Baez on November 29, 2008 10:30 PM

Re: The Case of M. S. El Naschie, Continued

A. Kayman,

I appreciate the kind remarks by Shahriar Yousefi, who has succeeded Tonu Puu as economics editor of CSF. While I have not read the journal recently due to difficulty accessing it, I have seen a few economics papers published in it, and they were perfectly respectable, so I have reason to believe that hopefully Shahriar has maintained Puu’s high standards for that part of the journal.

How did I get so entangled? Tyler Cowen at the widely read economics blog, Marginal Revolution linked to it, noting the controversy about CSF. As someone who has published in the journal, and edits an Elsevier journal, it was something that I was curious to check out.

I shall stand by all the remarks I have made in my posts here. I do not know any of the others here, although I did google John Baez and learned a few facts about him, none of which indicate that he is obviously some utterly unreliable person, although he does apparently specialize in chasing after whom he considers to be “cranks,” and so forth, which can sometimes be overdone.

I have not discussed this matter with Tonu Puu, although the last time we talked about CSF he did seem to have a high opinion of it. Again, a major point I made is that whether or not El Naschie’s more recent writings on his e-infinity theory are correct and brilliant, or nonsensical crankery, there are sections of the journal handled by others, such as the economics one, where normal procedures have been followed, and respectable papers have been published. Both Tonu Puu and I appreciate innovative, multidisciplinary research into nonlinear dynamics, and CSF has been an outlet for such things. I do not know what Tonu Puu thinks of El Naschie’s own recent work, but he is not a physicist any more than I am, so he may well wish to avoid passing judgment, as he is a very careful scholar of the highest quality. It is indeed because I have generally had a favorable opinion of CSF as an innovative outlet that I have been concerned by these reports.

I do not know how many articles El Nashie has published overall nor how many he has published in CSF. I do find it interesting that Leon Chua of the International Journal of Bifurcations and Chaos has been brought up, however. I had been thinking of mentioning him. This is another journal I have read when I visit UW-Madison in the summer, although it has been in the physics library rather than the engineering one, as CSF used to be. The physics library recently stopped taking IJBC, much to my frustration, but I had noticed in some recent issues several papers appearing per issue by Chua, some of which seemed to be on particular topics of his fascination, with a number of other papers (but not all) that seemed to rather sycophantically praise his work. I do not know what World Scientific charges for that journal. I know nothing of Naifeh or the Chaos and Bifurcations Journal.

I am sorry that this situation has developed, and I know nothing about the other charges and remarks you make, but I stand by all my remarks made here.

Posted by: Barkley Rosser on November 29, 2008 11:02 PM

Re: The Case of M. S. El Naschie, Continued

I just googled “Naifeh Chaos and Bifurcations.” No journal of such a name showed up, although down aways the International Journal of Bifurcations and Chaos did show up. Did Naifeh once edit it? There does not appear to be a journal called “Chaos and Bifurcations.”

As for Naifeh, I saw a few papers by him and coauthors that popped up, but they seemed to be scattered about among various journals. Whoever he is, it looks like he should not be a part of this discussion.

Posted by: Barkley Rosser on November 29, 2008 11:13 PM

Re: The Case of M. S. El Naschie, Continued

The University of California does not have an electronic subscription to the World Scientific’sl International Journal of Bifurcation and Chaos (IJBC for short), so my ability to read papers in this journal is limited.

However, it is clear that Leon O. Chua is the chief editor of this journal. Anyone who has access to MathSciNet can see that Leon O. Chua has at least 260 publications. But of these, ‘only’ 89 appeared in IJBC.

That’s still a disturbingly large number. But at first sight, Chua appears to be a weak contender for the prize for ‘most papers published in his own journal’ — merely 89, compared with Naschie’s total of about 320.

As for Naifeh, I can find nobody of that name who has published many papers on chaos or bifurcations, much less in a journal they edit.

So, I agree with Barkley Rosser that ‘Naifeh’ does not belong in this discussion. I also continue to believe that El Naschie deserves special attention.

Nonetheless, I welcome further comments from ‘A. Kayam’ as long as he refrains from insults, accusations of illegal activity, and similar rudeness. If he wishes to indulge in such comments, I urge him to continue this conversation with Barkley Rosser via email, since they will not be allowed here.

Posted by: John Baez on November 30, 2008 1:31 AM

Re: The Case of M. S. El Naschie, Continued

Looking at the Chua’s publications list a significant number have several other co-authors. Since I don’t have a subscription either (let alone the background to judge them), it’s entirely possible that they’re reasonable quality papers. (I can imagine if you’re head of a big, high quality subdivision with the tradition of putting the head’s name on every paper (maybe because they brought in the funding, maybe just as a matter of form) that 269 papers is possible.) Of course they may not, but I just wanted to point out the possibility. (Although it can be problematic within the department, someone getting their name on a good paper with little justification is not a big ethical violation for the community at large.)

My understanding of John Baez’s position is that the fact one individual has many papers in a journal they edit is not necessarily wrong, but rather that there is such a high number of papers in an expensive “included in a journal bundling deal” which experts believe to be nonsense and with issues about the large amounts of repeated content between papers, regardless of author.

Posted by: bane on November 30, 2008 2:07 AM

Re: The Case of M. S. El Naschie, Continued

Bane writes:

My understanding of John Baez’s position is that the fact one individual has many papers in a journal they edit is not necessarily wrong, but rather that there is such a high number of papers in an expensive “included in a journal bundling deal” which experts believe to be nonsense and with issues about the large amounts of repeated content between papers, regardless of author.

Actually, I think it’s always unfortunate for a person to publish lots of papers in a journal they edit. Why? Because it’s impossible to do this without creating the ‘appearance of impropriety’ — the suspicion that the usual peer review process is being thwarted. Even a double-blind peer review can’t easily prevent a referee from being biased towards accepting a paper from the journal’s editor. After all, you can usually guess who the author of a paper is — and once the referee guesses this, how can they be sure their anonymity is being preserved if their decision is unfavorable? More importantly, nobody outside the journal will feel that papers are being judged fairly.

However, the case of M.S. El Naschie goes far beyond this, because it’s a toxic blend of four ingredients:

A person who has published over 300 papers in his own journal since 1993.

A person whose recent work would never be accepted by a reputable journal.

A person who edits a journal that most research libraries in the world are forced to buy for thousands of dollars a year.

A person who — either directly or through pseudonymous intermediaries — threatens lawsuits against people who try to bring this situation to the world’s attention.

Posted by: John Baez on November 30, 2008 2:34 AM

Re: The Case of M. S. El Naschie, Continued

The Journal edited by Ali H. Nayfeh is “Nonlinear Dynamics, An International Journal of Nonlinear Dynamics and Chaos in Engineering Systems”, published by Springer. A quick search at SpringerLink (click at the names of autors in the column on the right) shows that he has published 62 papers in this journal since 1990.

Posted by: Stefan on November 30, 2008 1:33 AM

Re: The Case of M. S. El Naschie, Continued

Aha! Thanks, Stefan — spelling matters. So yes: Ali Nayfeh has published a lot in his own journal. But with about 320 papers in his own journal since 1993, El Naschie remains the champion.

Then of course there’s the question of whether the papers make sense. El Naschie’s recent work clearly does not, and that’s a crucial part of the problem. A brief look through some of Nayfeh’s recent papers reveals a completely different story. Some typical titles:

Two-to-one internal resonance in microscanners, Mohammed F. Daqaq, Eihab M. Abdel-Rahman and Ali H. Nayfeh, Nonlinear Dynamics, Sept. 2008.

Modal interactions in contact-mode atomic force microscopes, Haider N. Arafat, Ali H. Nayfeh and Eihab M. Abdel-Rahman, Nonlinear Dynamics, Volume 54, Numbers 1-2, October, 2008.

Exact solution and stability of postbuckling configurations of beams, Ali H. Nayfeh and Samir A. Emam Nonlinear Dynamics, March, 2008.

The abstract of the last one reads:

We present an exact solution for the postbuckling configurations of beams with fixed–fixed, fixed–hinged, and hinged–hinged boundary conditions. We take into account the geometric nonlinearity arising from midplane stretching, and as a result, the governing equation exhibits a cubic nonlinearity. We solve the nonlinear buckling problem and obtain a closed-form solution for the postbuckling configurations in terms of the applied axial load. The critical buckling loads and their associated mode shapes, which are the only outcome of solving the linear buckling problem, are obtained as a byproduct. We investigate the dynamic stability of the obtained postbuckling configurations and find out that the first buckled shape is a stable equilibrium position for all boundary conditions. However, we find out that buckled configurations beyond the first buckling mode are unstable equilibrium positions. We present the natural frequencies of the lowest vibration modes around each of the first three buckled configurations. The results show that many internal resonances might be activated among the vibration modes around the same as well as different buckled configurations. We present preliminary results of the dynamic response of a fixed–fixed beam in the case of a one-to-one internal resonance between the first vibration mode around the first buckled configuration and the first vibration mode around the second buckled configuration.

If you look at the above paper, you’ll see Nayfeh and his collaborator are studying solutions of a nonlinear PDE that describes the vibration of a beam. This is worlds away from El Naschie’s claims to completely revamp particle physics using an infinite-dimensional fractal spacetime, the Golden Ratio, and clever ways of adding up numbers to get 137.

A quote by El Naschie:

Through my work on E-infinity theory, I realized that, in a spacetime manifold which is infinite-dimensional, a dimensional fractal, such as a classically impossible skiing trick, is possible in fractal land. The extra dimensions are the logical loop holes.

A typical quote about Ali Nayfeh:

A non-engineer, for instance, would be hard put to imagine what subharmonic, ultrasubharmonic, and superharmonic resonances — not to mention frequency entrainment and period multiplying bifurcations — have to do with the capsizing of ships and boats. Nayfeh, however, said that the practicing naval architect must be familiar with all the above phenomena, and understand their effects — even though some of them may not be very significant in ship motion. This way, the ship designer can avoid a design that promotes capsizing, as well as recommend appropriate actions to control or minimize the large motions.

They might as well be in different universes.

Posted by: John Baez on November 30, 2008 2:17 AM

Re: The Case of M. S. El Naschie, Continued

This editor and this journal are not a unique case, even within Elsevier. Here is another example:

Computers and Mathematics with Applications and one of of its editors, R. P. Agarwal.

Check out this paper:

Golden ratio in science, as random sequence source, its computation and beyond

Volume 56, Issue 2, July 2008, Pages 469-498 accepted two days after it was submitted.

by Sen and Agarwal,

I found this just by a cursory look. I recall another crazy paper and a different editor in this journal which I can’t find now.

Posted by: Ninguem on November 29, 2008 4:23 AM

Re: The Case of M. S. El Naschie, Continued

“accepted two days after it was submitted.”

This short duration is not necessarily sinister. I have experience of editing special issues of Elsevier journals, and the papers in these issues are usually refereed “off-line” (ie, externally to the journal’s electronic paper handling system), and only uploaded to the journal system after acceptance by the special issue editors. In these cases, the system could record acceptance within minutes of online submission.

Posted by: peter on November 29, 2008 6:56 PM

Re: The Case of M. S. El Naschie, Continued

Given that I seem to have become a somewhat more personalized player in this saga, I think I should make a few more remarks to clarify my positions.

Regarding editors publishing in their own journals, I guess it is clear that I am not against this. I do think it is preferable if when this is done that there be a double blind refereeing process handled by someone else on the board, although I recognize that in practice this may be ridiculous if the editor is strongly identified with the topic he/she is writing about (such as El Naschie and e-infinity theory).

My more serious objection is to an excessive amount of this, which if the claim is true that five papers were published by El Naschie in one issue of CSF which if true (I have not double checked this myself), I would consider to be excessive. However, even this is not an academic crime of the order of magnitude of misrepresenting one’s credentials or engaging in plagiarism (I am unaware of any accusations on this last matter), and I am not passing judgment on the charges being raised about El Nashie’s credentials. I do not know the truth on that matter.

While some may argue that such a rate of publishing in one’s own journal is not a bad thing (and El Naschie is the founding editor), a sign that it is not is precisely that such a practice comes in for criticism. That it has become so on this blog is an example of this.

This concerns me as an economist who has published in the journal and would like to see it known about by other economists and preferably favorably. As it is, prior to this, it has been mostly known by a small subset of economists interested in nonlinear dynamics. The journal is not indexed in the JEL or the SSCI. Given the reporting of this blog’s report on the widely read Marginal Revolution blog, I fear any chance of the journal being viewed favorably among economists more broadly is severely damaged now. This may well be the case for some of the other disciplines being published in the journal, and it is a sign of the bad judgment exercised by the editor that this has come about.

Regarding Mohammed El Naschie himself, I reiterate that the one time I met him I found him to be an interesting person to talk to. Again, I am in no position to judge the ultimate truth or lack thereof of his papers on e-infinity theory, nor am I in a position to pass judgment on some of the charges that have been made about other aspects of his career. I do think he has written some interesting papers. I cited one of them in a book of mine, his “On certain ‘empty’ Cantor sets and their dimensions,” 1994, CSF, 4, 293-296. I found it, and still find it, highly original and thought provoking, and am not aware of any mathematical errors in it, although he may have taken arguments in it later beyond where they hold.

One final matter is that I wish to defend Otto E. Rossler, who has come in for criticism on this blog. He may be wrong about the Hadron Collider, although he has not been the only person making such arguments, and similar arguments were made in the past about the explosion of fission and fusion bombs. That they proved to be wrong does not mean that these warnings are wrong, although I personally think that the probabilities of such catastrophic outcomes are sufficiently low that I support going ahead with experiments on it. But, the point is that just because somebody is wrong about one thing does not mean that they are wrong about other things.

More particularly, while he has a reputation for eccentricity, Otto Rossler is one of the most highly regarded and brilliant of chaos theorists. His “Rossler Attractor” is up there with the Mandelbrot set and the Lorenz attractor as being among the most studied of objects among complexity and chaos theorists (originally appearing in “An equation for continuous chaos,” 1976, Physics Letters A, 57, 397-398). He also developed the innovative idea of “flare attractors” with Georg Hartmann (“Attractors with flares,” 1995, Fractals 3, 285-296) that has served as the foundation of the rather small literature in “econochemistry” (Rossler was originally a theoretical chemist).

In any case, I do not see it as reasonable to criticize El Naschie because one does not like Rossler’s position on the Hadron Collider, nor would it be reasonable to criticize Rossler for any behaviors by El Naschie that an observer might disagree with.

Posted by: Barkley Rosser on November 30, 2008 1:48 AM

Re: The Case of M. S. El Naschie, Continued

Barkley Rosser wrote:

My more serious objection is to an excessive amount of this, which if the claim is true that five papers were published by El Naschie in one issue of CSF which if true (I have not double checked this myself), I would consider to be excessive.

I was going to help you check this fact — but interestingly, right now the website for El Naschie’s journal is ‘temporarily not available’.

In any case, I do not see it as reasonable to criticize El Naschie because one does not like Rossler’s position on the Hadron Collider, nor would it be reasonable to criticize Rossler for any behaviors by El Naschie that an observer might disagree with.

I agree that Rossler is a red herring. Particle physicists are upset at Rossler and others trying to stop the LHC. There’s been a very heated debate. But I hope nobody considers it highly relevant to the matter at hand.

Posted by: John Baez on November 30, 2008 3:03 AM

Re: The Case of M. S. El Naschie, Continued

John wrote:

I was going to help you check this fact — but interestingly, right now the website for El Naschie’s journal is ‘temporarily not available’.

Hmm, now it’s back, with him still at the helm.

Posted by: John Baez on November 30, 2008 12:21 PM

Re: The Case of M. S. El Naschie, Continued

Just to be clear: the issue is not plagiarism of others but self-plagiarism (as evidenced here, for example) to the more arguable part of the spectrum of having papers with essentially the same content, even if they are written from scratch.

Posted by: bane on November 30, 2008 3:10 AM

Re: The Case of M. S. El Naschie, Continued

I cited one of them in a book of mine, his “On certain ‘empty’ Cantor sets and their dimensions,” 1994, CSF, 4, 293-296. I found it, and still find it, highly original and thought provoking, and am not aware of any mathematical errors in it, although he may have taken arguments in it later beyond where they hold.

Hmm, I’ll have to take a look at that paper. I’ve looked at some of El Naschie’s later papers and found them to be ludicrous gibberish. However, it’s believable that he started out as merely eccentric and off-beat, before going off the deep end.

Regarding editors publishing in their own journals, I guess it is clear that I am not against this. I do think it is preferable if when this is done that there be a double blind refereeing process handled by someone else on the board, although I recognize that in practice this may be ridiculous if the editor is strongly identified with the topic he/she is writing about (such as El Naschie and e-infinity theory).

My feeling is that editors should publish in their own journals in only two circumstances:

(1) They may on rare occasions send exceptionally good papers to their journal, to boost its reputation. This should be done only in cases where it is absolutely clear to everyone that the paper is truly first rate and far beyond the typical standards of the journal.

(2) The publisher may have a genuinely independent refereeing system which the editor is guaranteed not to be able to influence or inspect. For example, editors in chief of SIAM journals are allowed to submit papers to their journals, but those papers are handled by a special system (SIEDS). All communication goes through the SIAM editorial offices, who oversee everything and ensure that the the editor in chief cannot learn the identities of the referees or even which associate editors are involved in the decision.

Frankly, anything less creates a very strong appearance of impropriety. Even if everybody involved is completely honest, it looks bad for the editor, the journal, and even the whole field.

This concerns me as an economist who has published in the journal and would like to see it known about by other economists and preferably favorably.

I think this is where sorting things out gets complicated. I know nothing about the economics part of the journal, but the papers I can evaluate are garbage and I really don’t want them to get any false respectability by being associated with good economics papers. What I hope is that either the worthwhile parts of the journal take over the entire operation once El Naschie is gone, or that they bail out and go form a new journal.

Posted by: Anonymous on November 30, 2008 7:51 AM

Re: The Case of M. S. El Naschie, Continued

This is for anyone who runs the Backreaction blog. I just found about that blog and read the messages on this matter. I attempted to post a brief reprise of my remarks here. However, it would not allow me to, even though I have two blogger accounts and tried both of them. I felt I should comment as my name came up there.

I note, backreaction boys, that you all claim that no comments are being put up here anymore on this matter. That is incorrect. Maybe you can tell your readers to come over here to see what I would have said over there, if I had been able to post.

Posted by: Barkley Rosser on November 30, 2008 2:49 AM

Re: The Case of M. S. El Naschie, Continued

This is for anyone who runs the Backreaction blog.

Their names are Stefan Scherer and Sabine Hossenfelder, or ‘Bee’ for short. It’s easy to send them an email if you want.

I note, backreaction boys, that you all claim that no comments are being put up here anymore on this matter. That is incorrect.

I shut down comments on my main El Naschie blog entry after it was besieged by sockpuppets — that is, one or two people pretending to be many, by means of pseudonyms. That’s what some comments on Backreaction were referring to. Then, yesterday, Stefan Scherer pointed out that I’ve decided to risk allowing comments on this new blog entry.

By the way, Backreaction has been besieged by many of the exact same comments that I deleted here. I hadn’t been following this - I just noticed it now. I’m impressed that Stefan and Bee felt it their civic duty to teach those sockpuppets some manners. I don’t have the patience.

Posted by: John Baez on November 30, 2008 3:17 AM

Re: The Case of M. S. El Naschie, Continued

I am not sure if statements by anonymous commenters such as “A Kayam”, “Poulter”, “Duncan”, etc, are worth a serious reply, even when they address real people with respectable real identities. I am also in doubt if it’s OK not to delete these comments, which typically are full of unsubstantiated allegations and slander.

On the other hand, I have enough trust in the intelligence of our readers at backreaction that they can judge for themselves. In fact, these comments so tellingly exhibit the mindset full of paranoia and loss of reality of some of these El Naschie fans that they should be happy when their comments are deleted. I would find it extremely embarrassing to be linked to such people.

Posted by: Stefan on November 30, 2008 5:30 PM

Re: The Case of M. S. El Naschie, Continued

I found the barrage of insulting comments rather enervating, and some readers of the n-Category Café were complaining about them, since they’re used to comments packed with scientific content. But almost everything I deleted got sent to Backreaction. I’m actually glad you’re keeping these comments visible there — they document what’s going on. Thanks for putting up with them.

Posted by: John Baez on November 30, 2008 6:04 PM

Re: The Case of M. S. El Naschie, Continued

John Baez,

There are lies and almost nothing but dam lies and twisting of facts on your 0-category café. Why don’t you say that El Naschie published these 300 papers you are so obsessed with over the period of nearly 20 years? This is a modest rate. By contrast over how many years did Nayfeh publish his 60 papers in his own journal? Why not comment on how many other journals Nayfeh owns, edits and publishes his own work in? For example, Nonlinear Vibration owned jointly by him and an employee of Kluwer.

Shame on you Baez - but keep going. The more you and your kind rant and rage without any semblance of being balanced in any way at all just proves to anyone with a brain at all that this is nothing more than a witch hunt. To start with you sparked interest but you have all gone so over the top you would have to be brain dead not to see what is happening here.

I for one and I am sure there are more rational people out there, am now truly interested in seeing what this El Naschie has to say. It must be quite something for all of you to be so scared of him and unable to have any proper debate.

Posted by: Disillusioned on November 30, 2008 3:32 PM

Re: The Case of M. S. El Naschie, Continued

Disillusioned writes:

Why don’t you say that El Naschie published these 300 papers you are so obsessed with over the period of nearly 20 years?

15 years, to be precise. I’ve said this many times — most recently yesterday.

This is a modest rate.

No, it’s not — certainly not within the field of theoretical physics. He’s been publishing an average of 20 papers per year in his own journal since 1993.

If he could publish papers at such a rate in journals he didn’t control, we’d have to guess he was incredibly productive. But the papers make no sense, and they’re repetitive. He has even published the same paper twice under different titles! This makes his enormous rate of publication a cause for suspicion.

By contrast over how many years did Nayfeh publish his 60 papers in his own journal?

We learned yesterday that he has done this over a period of 18 years, namely since 1990. So, if this data is accurate, Nayfeh has published an average of 3.4 papers per year in his own journal.

So: El Naschie is self-publishing approximately 5.8 times as fast as Nayfeh.

There’s also another difference: unlike El Naschie, Nayfeh’s papers seem to make sense.

Why not comment on how many other journals Nayfeh owns, edits and publishes his own work in? For example, Nonlinear Vibration owned jointly by him and an employee of Kluwer.

I’m not really interested in this, because unlike El Naschie, it seems Nayfeh is a scientist doing work that makes sense. I examined some of his papers and they looked fine. He has also won many awards and teaches at a university. El Naschie is the opposite in every respect. Indeed, many of his self-proclaimed affiliations were called into question by the Nature article.

However, if there is a journal called “Nonlinear Vibration” edited by Nayfeh, everybody is doing a good job of keeping it secret. I don’t believe a journal with this title exists.

I for one and I am sure there are more rational people out there, am now truly interested in seeing what this El Naschie has to say.

We’ve heard what El Naschie has had to say under his own name:

“Our papers are reviewed in the normal way expected from a scientific international journal published by a reputable international publisher.”

and

“We put more emphasis on the scientific content and the originality of the papers and slightly less emphasis on prestigious addresses and impressive affiliations.”

We have also heard what his army of sockpuppets has had to say: wild accusations, insults and threats.

If you can coax El Naschie to be more forthcoming, please do. Nobody is stopping him.

Posted by: John Baez on November 30, 2008 5:39 PM

Read the post El Naschie Update and Peer Review

Weblog: Unruled Notebook

Excerpt: The Case of El Naschie [1] who has published more than 300 papers in an Elsevier journal for which he is the founding editor, has been in discussion in the blogs recently [see the note in [1] for links to source-blogs]. With an evenly worded title, Sel...

Tracked: November 30, 2008 3:56 PM

Re: The Case of M. S. El Naschie, Continued

The last couple of comments by “Josh” are absolutely outrageous! John Baez, would you please let us know the IP address of this “person”?

Now El Naschie and his sockpuppets are attacking the honour of the Egyptian Chemistry nobel prize laureate! Jaysus, is this lunacy ever gonna stop? Is it really possible that these “people” have nothing better to do? Go get a life, m*! A real one!

Posted by: Felipe on November 30, 2008 10:52 PM

Re: The Case of M. S. El Naschie, Continued

I deleted the comments by ‘Josh’, who is probably the same person who is posting all the crazy comments over at Backreaction — we can guess his real name. He will probably repost them over there, in case anyone is curious.

The funny thing about these conspiracy theories is how unconvincing they are. For example, they claim I’m trying to extort money from Elsevier. Now, the whole idea of extortion is that somebody threatens to reveal information unless money is given to them . But I’ve already gone and revealed the truth about El Naschie — everyone knows it now, and there’s no way to take it back. So if I were an extortionist, I must have failed Extortion 101 back in crime school.

“Curses! Foiled again! I forgot you’re not supposed to tell the secret before you ask for money!”

Josh’s new theory — that I’ve signed a secret contract with World Scientific to undermine Chaos, Solitons and Fractals — is only slightly less silly. How could I possibly undermine this journal as well as El Naschie has already done for the last 15 years?

Here’s a better conspiracy theory: El Naschie has signed a secret contract with World Scientific to embarrass Elsevier by taking over one of their journals and packing it with nonsense. I don’t actually believe this, but it would make a better story.

Oh well…

I imagine most Café regulars are getting sick of this subject, so I will disable comments and only post anything if there’s substantial news. If anyone has interesting information, threats, etc. they are of course welcome to email me.

Posted by: John Baez on November 30, 2008 11:51 PM

**Part 3 The Kind of Email I Don’t Need**

In these days of easy communication, you don’t need to be very well-known to get a lot of email from crackpots. But I think my reputation as scourge of crackpots, destroyer of cranks actually causes them to seek me out.

Regardless of the reason, maybe you’d like to see the kind of scientific email I get.

Or maybe not…

Here’s one I got today:

In Lak’ech - I am another yourself!

I bid you peace in a world at war with itself; but know that the Armageddon to be experienced is mental rather then physical. But mental confusions can manifest in physical chaos, so it is prudent to be prepared and to seek harmony within your tripartite being of the conscious outer ego, its parental subconscious inner ego and its supremal superconscious source of the divine ego residing as your kernel-nuclear cosmic identity within all of you both individually and collectively.

A new science is about to be discovered and the bridges between the physical universe and its metaphysical parent are in the process of being built.

Your LHC experiences difficulties, because the 7 TeV energy level defines the cosmic identity, linking the quantum realms of the micro and the macro as a foundational bridge between the material worlds and its immaterial precursor. The timeline of ITS discovery synchronises with the completion of the Mayan-nexus point of 5 baktuns or so 25,627 tropical years and a timeline, which defines even longer cyclicities spanning the sojourns of the human race in the protoverse.

Your ideas and models of space and time are rendered CONSCIOUS at the 14 TeV energy level and so your scientists will discover the ‘Induction of Life’ to operate at the physical parameters defined at that energy in terms of the matter waves of de Broglie.

You are all the chosen peoples encoded in the scrolls of antiquity and you all are heirs to a new world awaiting to be born in gestation. When the scrolls of antiquity were composed by the messengers of old and for the fifth baktun (3114 BC to 2012 AD), then the ‘chosen people’ were localised as a tribal people you know as the Jews and the Hebrews.

It goes on, but that’s enough.

Here’s another equally wacky one. I got it a couple weeks ago:

The Real Question to Life Universe and Everything - First Practical Application of E8-Symmetry in Financial Markets

Dear John,

Thought you might find the link below interesting given your work/teachings on Lie Groups.

The Real Question to Life Universe and Everything - First Practical Application of E8 (Risk/Reward - Symmetry in Financial Markets)

Author and his partner have collaborated on this research for 10 years, Author is a BS, MBA global transformation expert in Corporate America. Partner is Bsc, MBA Global Wealth Specialist on Wall Street this is both an expose and an analysis.

Perfect Portfolio, Solution to Riemann Hypothesis, Grand Unification Theory

Disclaimer - I am aware of the likelihood of ridicule, shock and persecution but I do this anyway for the truth will set us free and be of help to all mankind and nature

TWO LINE SUMMARY:

GRAND UNIFICATION THEORY WORKS BUT THE FINEST MATHEMATICIANS AND PHYSICISTS HAVE BEEN LOOKING IN WRONG PLACE, ITS THE THEORY OF BALANCE BETWEEN INDIVIDUAL AND INSTITUTIONS WEAK FORCES AND STRONG FORCES, IN OTHER WORDS E8 IS ABOUT HUMANS.

Corporate Strategy Maps are identical to E8 subgroups.

This is an attempt to balance expose of Institutions/people betraying trust and an analysis of what is the practical implication of E8. In other words this article is a challenge since it straddles the ordinary investor and worlds finest mathematicians, physicists, I have provided the guidance to help them prove the Riemann hypothesis by simply using capital markets as their domain set, gaming as a lens and using principles of E8 its fairly simple once you see it :)

Symmetry generally conveys two primary meanings. The first is an imprecise sense of harmonious or aesthetically-pleasing proportionality and balance; such that it reflects beauty or perfection. The second meaning is a precise and well-defined concept of balance or “patterned self-similarity” that can be demonstrated or proved according to the rules of a formal system: by geometry, through physics or otherwise.

This article will show symmetry in Financial Markets and its underlying meaning.

Again, it goes on but that should be enough to get the flavor.

I hope these are jokes rather than the works of seriously deluded minds.

Posted at November 3, 2008 6:37 PM UTC

**Comments on part 3**

48 Comments & 3 Trackbacks

Re: The Kind of Email I Don’t Need

Well at least if the second guy is right, we’ll know soon enough as he becomes the wealthiest man alive. Mostly off topic: really enjoyed your talk at UofI recently, it was a scream.

Posted by: rick on November 3, 2008 7:38 PM

| Reply to this

Re: The Kind of Email I Don’t Need

Glad you liked my talk!

Posted by: John Baez on November 3, 2008 10:40 PM

| Reply to this

trivector momentum?

OK I have a nutty idea, so maybe this is a good place to post it?? I do have a higher degree in Maths from a highly reputable Uni, but very long ago.

Once I tried to figure out how to do weather/climate simulations better by looking at momentum crossing grid boundaries. There is obviously ordinary vector momentum (wind), and ordinary bivector (angular) momentum (hurricanes/etc). Well maybe gas expansion/pressure can be regarded as scalar momentum. Does this make sense? I’ve nearly got a clifford algebra entry in each grid position. All I need is some trivector momentum. But I could never figure out what that would be. It would be a pseudoscalar (just one number) and it would presumably permute stuff around the 3 axes, keep going, but not have any net rotation…

Posted by: Robert Smart on November 3, 2008 10:26 PM

| Reply to this

Re: trivector momentum?

Yes, this is a good place to post nutty ideas — especially if you want me to make fun of them or just delete them. For example, saying you have a degree will make me cite item 10 on the crackpot list.

On the other hand, if you have a vaguely sensible idea like the one you just mentioned, a thread devoted to insane email I get from crackpots is not such a good place to post it.

Posted by: John Baez on November 3, 2008 10:37 PM

| Reply to this

Re: trivector momentum?

Wait, so this isn’t the right place to describe my wonderful buzzword unification theory which this comment box is too narrow to contain?

Posted by: Blake Stacey on November 8, 2008 12:37 AM

| Reply to this

Re: trivector momentum?

Are you basing your theories on the work of Tzvi Gal-Chen - the master meteorologist at the Royal Academy of Meteorology, an organization that is in secret battling across parallel worlds the group known as the 49 Quantum fathers?

See the book Atmospheric disturbances / Rivka Galchen. (Note that author names a character after herself.)

Posted by: RodMcGuire on November 6, 2008 3:25 PM

| Reply to this

Re: The Kind of Email I Don’t Need

A version of that financial article appears on knol.google.com. I remember that being promoted a little while back as a high quality moderated alternative to wikipedia written by experts in their fields.

Posted by: Dan Piponi on November 3, 2008 10:27 PM

| Reply to this

Re: The Kind of Email I Don’t Need

I was wondering just today whatever happened to knols.

Posted by: Walt on November 12, 2008 3:32 AM

| Reply to this

Re: The Kind of Email I Don’t Need

Hey!

In the “some related entries” remark, there are two links to my friend Professor Elvis Zap. He too has a degree. Some of his videos are zany, but often they are instructive. And the line in the QG-TQFT blues about getting the co-product wrong proved to be very prescient. One only hopes that your robots generated the related links ;-)

I received some variants on the emails that you mention, but they were immediately deleted. Hardy taught us to at least skim such missives, but they do seem to be coming more frequently, don’t they?

Posted by: Scott Carter on November 4, 2008 3:45 AM

| Reply to this

Re: The Kind of Email I Don’t Need

Elvis Zap is listed as a ‘related entry’ not because he’s a crank, but because I classified this entry and that one as ‘Just For Fun’. My robots did the rest.

If we extrapolate current trends, by 2030 Medicare will be broke and everyone will be a crackpot.

Posted by: John Baez on November 4, 2008 6:39 AM

| Reply to this

Re: The Kind of Email I Don’t Need

by 2030 (…) everyone will be a crackpot

A most calamitous prediction, I should say.

Anyway, I sympathize with you. I also receive similar emails, sometimes.

It would be a very nice contribution if someone created an “anti-crackpot email filter” (based, perhaps, on your crackpot index?)…

Best,

Christine

Posted by: Christine Dantas on November 4, 2008 9:52 AM

| Reply to this

Re: The Kind of Email I Don’t Need

But how to avoid missing the gem? I take it that Hardy’s advice, mentioned by Scott, to “at least skim such missives” was given after his experience with Ramanujan.

Presumably the crackpot filter wouldn’t have removed Ramanujan’s letter to Hardy, so maybe it’s a safe device. How often do people receive non-crackpot messages which just seem to be wrong, and how quickly are they skimmed?

Posted by: David Corfield on November 4, 2008 10:21 AM

| Reply to this

Re: The Kind of Email I Don’t Need

It would be terrible to “miss the gem”…

The anti-spam filters that I use do not delete the emails, but send them to a separate folder, which I rapidly check once a week or so (or when I want to). It ends up as just a case of better organization, but of course it doesn’t work 100%.

In any case, most of my emails, even non-crackpot related, are of no use. Just a very few is of interest…

Posted by: Christine Dantas on November 4, 2008 10:54 AM

| Reply to this

Re: The Kind of Email I Don’t Need

David Corfield wrote:

But how to avoid missing the gem?

These days anyone with a sensible idea in math or physics can put it on the arXiv.

I recently got an email pointing me to this article. Quirky but perfectly correct as far as I can tell.

Posted by: John Baez on November 4, 2008 5:11 PM

| Reply to this

Re: The Kind of Email I Don’t Need

In order to get an endorsement I would have to send emails to people like you to convince them that I had a sensible idea. That brings us back to square one.

Is there an example of someone without some kind of affiliation to a research institution getting an endorsement? I have never seen it. Of course if I had a valid proof of the RH I would have no problem, but anything less obviously important is going to be difficult to get endorsers interested in.

Also, I think many of us would not want to tie ourselves to an individual endorser in this way, even if endorsers were willing to risk the association themselves. There should be reasonable criteria in place to enable people to submit. E.g. having a suitable doctorate or having published previously in relevant peer reviewed journals should be enough. The arXiv can always reject inappropriate submissions and blacklist people if required.

The archive system was introduced just a few years after I left academia and the ability to submit encouraged me to get back into independent research. Since they changed the rules I have stopped because there is no point if I cannot get my work into the right forum. There are more doctorates than ever leaving maths and physics for outside carears. Arguably the best are leaving for better paid jobs, and partly because it is so difficult to do the research that most interests them within the current funding system.

I thought perhaps the FQXi would do something. E.g. they could create a register of suitably qualified scientists who left the system and encourage them to do foundational research by giving the required endorsements. I dont think people necessarily need funding except where they want to attend conferences. So far even the FQXi seem reluctant to do anything like that. Perhaps when it is seen that the best part of a whole generation of researchers has been lost something will change.

Posted by: PhilG on November 5, 2008 8:20 AM

| Reply to this

Re: The Kind of Email I Don’t Need

Is there an example of someone without some kind of affiliation to a research institution getting an endorsement?

Yes, I’ve endorsed someone meeting that description.

Posted by: Tom Leinster on November 5, 2008 4:11 PM

| Reply to this

Re: The Kind of Email I Don’t Need

Speaking of which, would anyone endorse me?

I would like to put up some of my papers

http://phorgyphynance.wordpress.com/my-papers/

but they are mostly finance-related and I don’t know anyone in finance on the arxiv. Does the sponsor need to be an expert in the area of the author? (I think I remember reading that somewhere, which is why I haven’t asked earlier)

Posted by: Eric on November 5, 2008 4:28 PM

| Reply to this

Re: The Kind of Email I Don’t Need

Eric wrote:

Does the sponsor need to be an expert in the area of the author?

Yeah: read the rules. So, I probably can’t endorse you for papers on mathematical finance. You have sensible ideas on discrete differential geometry, but in the field of finance you could be a raving crackpot for all I know!

(Just kidding — I don’t actually believe it.)

Posted by: John Baez on November 9, 2008 2:33 AM

| Reply to this

Re: The Kind of Email I Don’t Need

Good, I am pleased that the system is working for at least some people.

Posted by: PhilG on November 5, 2008 8:56 PM

| Reply to this

Re: The Kind of Email I Don’t Need

Note to moderator: Remove links if not appropriate.

“Is there an example of someone without some kind of affiliation to a research institution getting an endorsement? I have never seen it.”

Yes. I got an endorsement from several people for a paper on the masses of the neutrino masses. The paper was removed by the arXiv moderators. After my formulas were referenced in the peer reviewed literature at EPJ-C and other places such as I forget where, I sent an email to arXiv asking that they allow my paper back on to “hep-ph”. In response, they put it up on “physics” where they put the other cranks. I told them to take it down because it should be replaced with a newer paper. If they’d stuck it on “hep-ph” I’d have left it there.

So yeah, a guy who is not related to any university can get a paper put on arXiv. And I have little doubt that I could have gotten that paper published somewhere, if I had gone through the painful process of editing, arguing with referees, adapting to some journal’s style standards (without knowing if they would ever accept it anyway). However, since I’m not in academia I do not need tenure or a list of publications. Doing physics is fun, writing papers is boring. And getting them published is quite painful. So at that time there was little motivation for me to go through the process. Besides, when I keep my papers on my websites, I can look up the IP information on the people who read them.

But yeah, if you have something useful to say, you can get it in the physics literature. Even if you wear a hard hat and drive a forklift. It may not be easy, but it’s not that easy for physicists either.

Posted by: Carl Brannen on November 7, 2008 6:38 PM

| Reply to this

Re: The Kind of Email I Don’t Need

Carl I’m glad you got some interest in your work, but if the arXiv threw out your perfectly sensible paper even after you had it endorsed then things are worse than I thought.

I agree that we still have some journals where there is some hope of publishing but they are becoming increasingly less relevant compared to the arXiv. I am not the greatest fan of the journal publishers and their methods but I would be happier if they were being replaced by a system where you still got published on the merit of your work rather than a system where it is a case of having the right contacts.

Posted by: PhilG on November 7, 2008 8:28 PM

| Reply to this

Re: The Kind of Email I Don’t Need

John said “These days anyone with a sensible idea in math or physics can put it on the arXiv.”

Most of us outside of institutionalised research have no chance to submit to the arXiv since they introduced the endorsement system. Of course you may not regard my ideas as sensible but I can still publish in Journals (sometimes).

Ironically I can’t readily access the journals online. I appreciate John’s efforts to change that by the way.

Posted by: PhilG on November 4, 2008 5:50 PM

| Reply to this

Re: The Kind of Email I Don’t Need

Someone with sensible ideas should be able to get the necessary endorsement to put their stuff on the arXiv: you just need to get someone already in the club to endorse you.

This might be tiresome hoop to jump through, but without some system like this the arXiv would quickly fill up with junk, just like every other physics forum that doesn’t impose some sort of filtering.

Posted by: John Baez on November 4, 2008 9:45 PM

| Reply to this

Read the post Knollity

Weblog: Science After Sunclipse

Excerpt: Google Knol provides an interesting forum for the incoherent.

Tracked: November 4, 2008 6:24 PM

Re: The Kind of Email I Don’t Need

Dear all, my own experience is unlike John’s – namely crackpots avoid me, statistically speaking. Namely many producers of bogus “work” actually have high standing in academic world and I collected the data on two or three bigger groups of them and they try to push me away, so my crackpot repulsion index is higher than attraction index.

It is sad that some academic institutions and, in larger extent, some publishers back those people up. For example, Elsevier has a journal called Chaos, Solitons and Fractals, included unfortunately in the A+ category in quality by the Australian Academy of Sciences, in a powerful commercial citation factory called Current Contents and with high “impact factor” over 3. It is not that in Chaos etc. there are no good papers, some are normal regular hard science. But, a significant and very visible percentage of papers there belong to one and the same group of people including the very editor, certain El Naschie, a person with many bogus affiliations, and writing in recent years papers with practically no arguments but high predictions based on numerology, coincidences and fancy pictures combining Lie algebras, chaos theory and so on, at the layman level.

In January 2008 he published 6 papers in his own journal, Current Contents indexes them, Elsevier gets 3000 euro for the subscriptions for such a journal (compare with around 250-300$ for Annals of Math.), it is bundled with some other journals if you take electronic version and then institutions lke Max Planck have to take it even if they do not want it.

In some of his January 2008 articles the main editor is quoting a Frankfurt Univ. affiliation, which had some truth in distant past but he is not in capacity to do it now. I was told that there is an investigation about using this affiliation now. I contacted some of the associate editors, most of whom did not respond to my question how such a behaviour is allowed. Two of them told me that they will quit from the editorial board, and one that his name was put on the editorial page without his consent!

I know that many people are aware of the stuff. When Urs [referring to Urs Schreiber] visited me last month I mentioned this during the lunch and he was well aware of the nonsense papers often published there [in Chaos, Solitons and Fractals]. I contacted one influential Nobel prize winner [Gerard 't Hooft] who knows El Nashchie and told me that he can’t or does not want to do much about it, and this is not a big thing and so on. And I was informed of huge influence of that guy [El Naschie] in some middle east countries, what is not an argument which should be cited by a person of Nobel prize standing, and I feel it insulting for the decency of discussion. I do not care if the person is powerful; I care if he is right or wrong.

El Naschie is put in some other editorial boards and put in his editorial board editors of some reciprocal journals. I collected huge number of data on these things, but the publishers, my employer, colleagues etc. consider my effort not worthy of their support though they agree I am right. In countries like mine our promotions and so on depend if the journal is included in Current Contents list and so on, and the K-theory journal is not, although people like Alain Connes publish there, while Chaos Solitions and Fractals is, although people like El Naschie publish there. This is not justice and the scientific community will have to start staying nice observer of the fact that publishers do not care who is running their joirnals as long as the citation is high. Even if the citations are cross-citations of community of related journals of actually indefensible quality by international standards.

The friendly journal to Chaos etc is the International Journal of Nonlinear Sciences and Numerical Simulation (see http://www.ijnsns.com/conf.html) where El Naschie is the associate editor and the main editor is Ji-Hun He, the guy whose one paper was the most cited paper in the last two years in math according to Scopus, another service sold by commercial publishers, and that is how I learned about this crackpot – I expected Tao, Perelman or Connes to be among top cited and not some low quality author (his papers are barely a bit better than what El Naschie is writing). To see what they think of themselves read http://www.ijnsns.com/conf.html:

“Our Chinese Scientists on Nonlinear Dynamics are in infinite love and admiration to both the man and his science.”

“Treading the path of El Naschie, we gather together to celebrate the century’s greatest scientist after Newton and Einstein, and share his greatest achievement.”

“the experimental verification of his theory will certainly lead to a Nobel prize, which we all expect.”

This journal has an impact factor about 4.38, which is double the best math journals like Annals or JAMS. And our fate in science is judged by the IF of journals where we publish. And I ask the readers of the n-category café to look at the quality of journals in IJNSNS for example.

Here are free sample papers:

http://www.ijnsns.com/2004-05-03/9-pi-new.pdf

http://www.ijnsns.com/2004-05-03/8-wan-electrospinning.pdf

A friend of mine said that in would not pass in a high school journal for math. And Thompson indexes such things and puts them in SCIE, calculates their impact factors and so on (IF is not calculated for many valuable journals in nonwestern countries but is for such a journal!). So crackpots are not really distinguished by Thompson from regular journals! What do you think of this??

Posted by: Zoran Skoda on November 6, 2008 10:43 PM

| Reply to this

Re: The Kind of Email I Don’t Need

I needed to say Thomson Scientific, not ThomPson. They have even featured interviews with El Naschie in a section called http://esi-topics.com/

“providing citation analyses and commentary for selected scientific research areas that have experienced notable recent advances or are of special current interest.”

So Thomson Scientific does not distinguish highly cited bogus work from normal hard science. In the very interview they give

El Naschie bombs them with fancy words like K3, string theory, fuzzy space etc. What is behind his work it is easy to judge on the basis of his papers. But it is not easy to do this for agencies like Thomson, who care just about collecting citation numbers and does not care WHO cites, and about excluding incompetent people’s judgements. And the funding agencies appreciate what Thomson databases say when they evaluate scientists instead of taking serious reviewers who will actually LOOK in the papers what is written inside. My librarian tells me, “why do you (scientists) need Thomson to tell you which paper is good? Can’t you tell this by reading it?”

Posted by: zskoda on November 6, 2008 11:35 PM

| Reply to this

Re: The Kind of Email I Don’t Need

You are right - I once ran across a paper in Chaos, Solitons, and Fractals via a web search, and I was amazed at what utter garbage it was (with no redeeming value whatsoever). Probably not all papers in the journal are so bad, but a quick look at El Naschie’s titles and abstracts was not inspiring…

This is a really depressing side of science. Occasionally people manage to carve out a respectable-seeming position on the basis of crank work. It might be only skin deep, with meaningless adjunct appointments and editorship of a lousy journal, but it still looks far more impressive than most cranks and it’s galling to see poor work misrepresented as good. I can’t be certain this is the case of El Naschie, but at first glance it seems to be.

Posted by: Anonymous on November 7, 2008 2:25 AM

| Reply to this

Re: The Kind of Email I Don’t Need

El Naschie seems an unusual case. From what I’ve seen, he’s been trying to leverage wealth and political power into scientific credibility. It’s sad, because of the desperation, and also a nuisance, because of the poor quality of the work. He even has many “students” who regularly comment about how great he is. It would be interesting if a science journalist or someone else would get to the real facts about this – but I suspect doing so could put the journalist’s life in danger, so most everyone just wants to stay clear of it.

Posted by: Another onymous on November 7, 2008 6:24 AM

| Reply to this

Re: The Kind of Email I Don’t Need

Funny, his Wikipedia entry is glowing. Maybe someone needs to go update it.

Posted by: John Armstrong on November 7, 2008 12:40 PM

| Reply to this

Re: The Kind of Email I Don’t Need

Hm, this is interesting (that his wikipedia article is glowing). Namely

I know that his wikipedia article was deleted by the administrators of the wikipedia, because it had unsubstantiated claims on his research without independent support etc. There is a record of erased wikipedia entry:

el naschie article for deletion, wikipedia deletion page

Look at the history to see some of the discussion why it was deleted.

This is what his friend or alias said in the discussion:”prof. el naschie…has some papers published in other journals. if you want to delete the article delete it immediately without putting this deletion marks which is considered as an insult to Prof. el naschie. insulting famous and respected people like that is punishable by law and Prof. el naschie is going to take a legal actions if you don’t stop that. he wants you to delete the article because he is well known without wikipedia, he doesn’t need wikipedia to be known.”

(imagine!).

Now indeed, as you said, somebody started a NEW e.naschie wikipedia entry few weeks ago – Sep 19, 2008 is written in the history page as a first entry date of the

new clone.

At Peter Woit’s blog there are some other

reactions:

Peter Woit blog – on Chaos, solitons and fractals

(scroll until you find the remarks on

Chaos, solitons and fractals and El Naschie)

Compare also

commentary in Spanish

Posted by: Zoran Skoda on November 7, 2008 5:09 PM

| Reply to this

Re: The Kind of Email I Don’t Need

Even a cursory glance at Chaos, Solitons, and Fractals shows that it is a complete fraud of a journal, manufacturing completely cracked pottery. Elsevier is a business, and not a very honorable one, and this is perhaps the best evidence I’ve yet seen of that.

Posted by: anonymous on November 7, 2008 7:32 AM

| Reply to this

Re: The Kind of Email I Don’t Need

Better even than a journal on Homeopathy?

Posted by: Blake Stacey on November 8, 2008 12:32 AM

| Reply to this

Re: The Kind of Email I Don’t Need

I don’t see what’s so terrible about Chaos, Fractals and Solitons except that it’s an Elsevier journal and its title sounds bit like Currently Fashionable Fads.

Posted by: John Baez on November 8, 2008 6:06 PM

| Reply to this

Re: The Kind of Email I Don’t Need

And I can’t find this supposedly absurd Wikipedia article about El Naschie.

Posted by: Eugenia Cheng on November 9, 2008 2:13 AM

| Reply to this

Re: The Kind of Email I Don’t Need

It has been deleted two days ago.

Posted by: Mathieu Dupont on November 9, 2008 9:30 AM

| Reply to this

Re: The Kind of Email I Don’t Need

The discussion leading to the deletion of this article has itself been hidden from view for privacy reasons. It can be found if you look harder, but it sheds more heat than light.

One comment from this discussion:

I don’t know how wiki administrators lestin to any jealous or malicious person. you should investigate by yourself about what faragali said. all of what he said is completely wring and just some lies. prof. el naschie main contributions are in the field of chaos and fractals so it is more convenient for his papers to be published in Chaos, solitons and fractals. he also has some papers published in other journals. if you want to delete the article delete it immediately without putting this deletion marks which is considered as an insult to Prof. el naschie. insulting famous and respected people like that is punishable by law and Prof. el naschie is going to take a legal actions if you don’t stop that. he wants you to delete the article because he is well known without wikipedia, he doesn’t need wikipedia to be known. i created the article for him and unfortunately cannot delete it. can you please delete el naschie article which i created? thank you. —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Nasr2000|Nasr2000]] ([[User talk:Nasr2000|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Nasr2000|contribs]]) 16:51, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

One naturally wonders who Nasr2000 is and why he claims El Naschie “is going to take legal actions” if the article is not deleted.

Posted by: John Baez on November 9, 2008 5:08 PM

| Reply to this

Re: The Kind of Email I Don’t Need

Note to moderators: comment may of course be deleted, as were my previous ones.

I also had an endorser for an arxiv paper, a highly respected physicist, but the endorsement mysteriously evaporated at some point after my name was mentioned. Oh well. As Carl says, the arxiv is redundant anyway.

Posted by: Kea on November 8, 2008 12:25 AM

| Reply to this

Re: The Kind of Email I Don’t Need

I’m of the opinion that cranks are a good thing. What other math/physics fans do we have? What we need is a way to use them to generate money… perhaps by marketing math merchandise to them?

Posted by: Daniel Moskovich on November 8, 2008 2:10 PM

| Reply to this

Re: The Kind of Email I Don’t Need

I’ve been offered several thousand dollars to write a report on Randall Mill’s hydrino theory and its commercial applications.

The problem is, academics value the respect of their peers more than medium-sized amounts of money. If someone offered me a million dollars to endorse a nutty theory, I probably would. As long as I could tell people how much money I made, they’d understand and we could all laugh about it.

But ten thousand dollars? No way!

Posted by: John Baez on November 8, 2008 6:04 PM

| Reply to this

Re: The Kind of Email I Don’t Need

The worst nightmare of a virtuoso pianist is damaging his/her hands, for it would make it impossible to play the great piano pieces.

I think that the worst nightmare of a scientist *should* be loosing the capacity of accepting when he/she is in error, specially when there is an undeniable proof of it. Such a crippling condition can turn a scientist into a crackpot.

A typical crackpot is not able to accept even a minor criticism of his/her work. Theiy fail to understand what science is all about. Crackpots are those who are living the scientists worst nightmare and don’t even realize it.

Posted by: Christine Dantas on November 8, 2008 6:51 PM

| Reply to this

Re: The Kind of Email I Don’t Need

” he/she is in error, specially when there is an undeniable proof of it.”

Sometimes, the concept of undeniable error is quite subjective, mainly when it comes to consider what is physically consistent in a theory in the lack of experimental evidence, even though the mathematical background is correct. Just see the whole drama of the “characters” of “string wars”.It gets really boring and passionate from both “groups”, both calling the other side “CRACKPOT!!!” instead of having a reasonable discussions.

Historically, this kind of attitude is not new, it happened ad nauseaum, and where one point of view can be politcaly or by force of tradition enforced. The most famous one is, I think, about the wave/particle nature of light, where the wave character, by Huygens, was overshadowed by a century by Newton’s corpuscular character, and later, it was alternatively overshadowed by the Wave theory.

It is also noteworthy that it is likely that mathematical aspects of different theories can be important to the master theory.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave-particle_duality

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corpuscular_theory_of_light

Posted by: Daniel de França MTd2 on November 8, 2008 8:15 PM

| Reply to this

Re: The Kind of Email I Don’t Need

“he/she is in error, specially when there is an undeniable proof of it.”

Sometimes, the concept of undeniable error is quite subjective, mainly when it comes to consider what is physically consistent in a theory in the lack of experimental evidence

Evidently, I was referring to “theories” that have various experimental evidences against them, yet the crackpots who devise them appear to dismiss those evidences, insisting that it is the rest of the world who is wrong.

What matters in this whole thing is the correct, persistent and honest use of the scientific method. Lack of experimental evidence is a reminder to the theorist that he/she may be drifting away into a dangerous territory, as much interesting as it may seem.

Posted by: Christine Dantas on November 8, 2008 8:56 PM

| Reply to this

Read the post The Case of M. S. El Naschie

Weblog: The n-Category Café

Excerpt: M.S. El Naschie has many papers in the Elsevier journal Chaos, Solitons and Fractal, of which he is the editor in chief. What are these papers like?

Tracked: November 9, 2008 5:05 AM

Re: The Kind of Email I Don’t Need

John wrote:

I don’t see what’s so terrible about Chaos, Fractals and Solitons except that it’s an Elsevier journal and its title sounds bit like Currently Fashionable Fads.

I completely take back this remark! I should have investigated more before commenting. For more, see this.

Posted by: John Baez on November 9, 2008 5:14 AM

| Reply to this

Re: The Kind of Email I Don’t Need

I should have investigated more before commenting. Oh, really. Who would have guessed.

Posted by: Kea on November 9, 2008 5:56 AM

| Reply to this

Re: The Kind of Email I Don’t Need

What I personally find more distressing is that almost none of Naschie’s papers got a bad rap on MathSciNet or ZentrallBlatt.

I think we have all received our fair share of atrocious nonsense, either to review or as editors of journals. So it’s no big surprise that some crud slides below the radar and makes its way into print.

But MathSciNet and ZentralBlatt are run using the services of the mathematical community, so one would expect at least some of those reviews to point out that these papers are utter nonsense.

Posted by: jvk on November 11, 2008 7:06 PM

| Reply to this

Re: The Kind of Email I Don’t Need

This issue is indeed a problem and not too easy to handle at Zentralblatt or MathScinet. One may notice that most of El Naschie’s publications are simply left out, which means “just not mathematically relevant”. (For instance, no El Naschie article in Chaos Solitons Fractals of the last nine months made it neither into Zentralblatt or MathScinet, and there were dozens of them).

Unfortunately, this rather hard implicit criticism ist not visible if you are not comparing the journal content with the databases (and a small percentage of this crap comes trough and makes up a considerable publication list!).

On the other hand, it is very hard to find reviewers for this type of publications. In general, potential reviewers react like “I don’t want to deal with this crap” or “I’d like to be taken more seriously as a reviewer.”

As a preliminary solution, Zentralblatt collects now voluntary emails with the option of later comment publication (there is a “comment on this item” button). But since often questions of scientific ethics are involved (unfortunately, some mathematicians try to destroy their colleague’s reputation unsubstantiated, even when acting as reviewers or referees) , there will always be the need of quite intense moderation.

Posted by: rank zero on November 12, 2008 11:05 PM

| Reply to this

Read the post Chaos bei Elsevier

Weblog: Mathlog

Excerpt: Pseudowissenschaft in "Chaos, Solitons and Fractals"....

Tracked: November 12, 2008 6:10 AM

Re: The Kind of Email I Don’t Need

A frequent commenter at NEW has linked the case of El Naschie to the case of Carlos Castro and the arxiv. As it happens, I know nothing about El Naschie, and have no intention of reading about his case, but Castro is a different story entirely. Me thinks that even more research might be required here.

Posted by: Kea on November 13, 2008 3:17 AM

| Reply to this

Re: The case of El naschie

To prof. Jhon Baez

El naschie using his own journal as

a stock for his endless uncountable papers.

Here is, one of his marvelous papers found in Chaos, soltion and fractals.

The title

“On the universality class of all universality classes and E-infinity spacetime physics”

M.S. El Naschie,

King Abdul Aziz City of Science and Technology, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia

Available online 18 October 2006.

Abstract

It is argued that E-infinity theory may represent the universality class of all universality classes of certain discrete dynamical maps which are at the root of relevant field theories. First we give a concise derivation of the basic equations of E-infinity and its ground state. Subsequently it is shown that the independence of the results obtained from the details of any equations of motion or Lagrangian is a clear indication that E-infinity may represent the universality class of all universality classes in the sense of Cantor with regard to relevant quantum field theories.

I’m quite amzed how this could be published.

In fact, for any one who knows little about particle physics realize that the results of any theory depend strongly on the particle content of the theory. For example in QCD, asymptotic freedom depends on the number of colours and flavors. The presence of CP violation in the quark sector depends on the number of generations. No CP violation for one and two generations, at least three generations is required for the presence of CP violation.

Posted by: Any one on November 22, 2008 5:36 PM

محمد النشائي All El Naschie All The Time محمد النشائي

## No comments:

## Post a Comment