You can go over there to read the article, and come back here to read the comments. As usual, I've made pro-Naschie stuff green for your convenience.

NewScientist moderates comments much more strictly than Scientific American. They deleted 150 to 200 comments. We have retained many of them in this archive.

**UPDATE**.

I was wondering what kinds of comments NewScientist was censoring. I've found the answer in the following comment, from this crackpot site:

Since the New Scientist magazine is refusing to publish any comments connected to Prof. Mohamed El Naschie and his work on the exceptional E8 symmetry groups, I ask you all if they would not have published a long article if his first name would not be Mohamed and his passport would not be Egyptian and his main concern peace in the Middle East? Try to be honest with yourself and answer this question and then you will hopefully write to the New Scientist that they should be ashamed of themselves for not at least publishing another point of view. The opinion of the majority of the world’s population, the opinion of what they call the third world.

A Nobel prize for a Mohamed – that would be the day!

Posted by Islam Abdullah on January 21, 2008 10:30 PM

Uh huh. That damn Nobel Prize KKKomittee is full of racists.

Here are the comments:

**Articles On Palmers Climate Work**

Fri Mar 27 13:27:30 GMT 2009 by Eric Kvaalen

Fri Mar 27 13:27:30 GMT 2009 by Eric Kvaalen

NS had an article in 2003 mentioning Palmers work on ensemble forecasting:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg18024235.500-making-waves.html?full=true

Also a 2001 article:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg17123024.400-dont-blame-the-butterfly.html?full=true

**Fractal Geometry**

Sat Mar 28 21:26:49 GMT 2009 by Jules Ruis

Sat Mar 28 21:26:49 GMT 2009 by Jules Ruis

For more information about fractals see:

http://www.fractal.org/Fractalary/Fractalary.htm

**Quantum Theory To Be Continued!**

Mon Mar 30 13:06:22 BST 2009 by Shalton

Mon Mar 30 13:06:22 BST 2009 by Shalton

Im a physic student at the university of north west, south africa

Im worried about the introduction of statistics in Quantum theory becuase it destroys the meaning of physics

In sense that physics describes how the nature works.i strongly believe that a conclusion about Quantum theory will be done when we can measure those physical quantities at quantum state.the probability concept must be reduced

**Fractal Photo**

Mon Mar 30 13:11:05 BST 2009 by john

Mon Mar 30 13:11:05 BST 2009 by john

The photo accompanying this article looks like one of those many beautiful computer-generated images of fractals that we've become familiar with over the years. However, it's actually a photo of a broccoflower (http://tinyurl.com/dfaglj), a cross between a broccoli and a cauliflower. This vegetable has an incredbile fractal shape, which is why a bought one when I found it in my supermarket. It also tasted OK, when I finally got around to eating it after using it as a decoration for a few days.

**Universe A Fractal Then?**

Mon Mar 30 14:13:55 BST 2009 by Ivor Clark

Mon Mar 30 14:13:55 BST 2009 by Ivor Clark

If there is an underlying physical structure to the hows and whys of quantum phenomena, then by extrapolation our whole Universe is to us just the macroscopic expression of that, and we just happen to sit on the edge of one of those broccoli spears, or fearn leaves, looking upward and outward, seeing stars, galaxies, supergalaxies and super galaxy clusters, and looking downward and inward at proteins, molecules, elements, atoms, electrons and nucleons........nice!

**A World In A Grain Of Sand**

Mon Mar 30 14:26:40 BST 2009 by Rodrigo Bernardo

Mon Mar 30 14:26:40 BST 2009 by Rodrigo Bernardo

Blake had seen it, as Feynman. Subatomic particles travelling at speeds close to that of light have infinity to calculate if their possible states correspond to possible Universe states, adjusting inner possibility (obsevation) to the whole. At each moment the whole Universe is recalculated, so that its memory (each particle has a history) can be, mechanical constraints observed.

But quantum physics branch that presuposes will (and conciousness) is right, as they are the only source of movement

**Wow. . .**

Mon Mar 30 14:34:39 BST 2009 by David

Mon Mar 30 14:34:39 BST 2009 by David

... This article really hurt my head!

**Two Sides, But---**

Mon Mar 30 15:00:15 BST 2009 by Le Comte d'Alembert

Mon Mar 30 15:00:15 BST 2009 by Le Comte d'Alembert

Interesting article; I can't evaluate the theory well, because I don't know the particular maths involved well, but I think the article might leave the naïve observer with the impression that Bohr and Einstein's ideas, loosely construed, have roughly equal valence in the world of physics. They do not: most of us use the 'Copenhagen' interpretation, undisturbed by the deeper implications because we need not care about them to get our work done, and doing anything else has sent wiser heads than ours down fruitless rabbit-holes for years' time. That does not mean that this is fundamentally right, but it does mean that any piece on the subject should not leave the impression that most of us operationally care about the fundamentals.

And you fail to ask about the entropy released back into the system via Hawking radiation as a compensator for the information loss during the formation of an horizon, a question so basic that even _I_ thought of it....

**Black Holes Destroy Information?**

Mon Mar 30 15:22:53 BST 2009 by Arthur James

Mon Mar 30 15:22:53 BST 2009 by Arthur James

I just finished reading Susskind's book claiming that the majority of physicists are now convinced that black holes do not destroy information. Yet this article states it as a given that they do. What is the current view?

**I Like Palmer's Idea**

Mon Mar 30 15:25:20 BST 2009 by Mathias

Mon Mar 30 15:25:20 BST 2009 by Mathias

I have a good feeling about this one.

**What Dreams Are Made Of. . . . . . .**

Mon Mar 30 15:39:00 BST 2009 by steve oifer

Mon Mar 30 15:39:00 BST 2009 by steve oifer

Quantum states come into "being" just as dreams come into "being". The process of thought gives rise to "something" from "nothing" in both instances!

Perhaps this "link", between the physical and non-physical reality of the world, completes the gestalt of the fractile universe.

Black Holes Destroy Information?

Mon Mar 30 15:48:54 BST 2009 by Chris

Black Holes Destroy Information?

Mon Mar 30 15:48:54 BST 2009 by Chris

I'm far from an authority on the subject but my understanding is that Hawking radiation is generally accepted in the field, promoting the view that information is not lost when matter is consumed by a black hole. I'm not sure why this article suggests otherwise; it's worth bearing in mind that the reason could be that I simply overestimate my knowledge of what is current in the field! ;)

**Inconsistent**

Mon Mar 30 16:01:36 BST 2009 by Martin Diers

Mon Mar 30 16:01:36 BST 2009 by Martin Diers

So, when a physicist (Freeman Dyson) questions the status quo in climatology, he's a crank. But when a climatologist questions the status quo in physics, he's lauded.

Nope. Nothing political at work here.

**But Then. . .**

Mon Mar 30 16:07:57 BST 2009 by Richard

Mon Mar 30 16:07:57 BST 2009 by Richard

"the black hole can be described completely using just three quantities - its mass, angular momentum and electric charge"

If mass is one of the invariants of the fractal, it should be present at "any" zoom in the universe. Its clear we have mass at greater scales... but...

There should also be no lower limit to particle mass, to particle charge and to particle angular momentum, as we could keep zooming in. And finding "new" smaller components of this fractal universe.

**Quantum Theory To Be Continued!**

Mon Mar 30 16:10:50 BST 2009 by j

Mon Mar 30 16:10:50 BST 2009 by j

Well I felt the same way as you when I studied Quantum physics.

But as you understand Isac Newton found a way to explain out nature, Then suddenly Einstein turnd it all around.

Same goes here with quantum theory it is just a way to describe our "universe". It is not necessarily true or false, It is just an instrument or tool for us to understand our "universe". Remembering that you will have less problems with different theories that seem to kill the meaning of physics, that will enable you to study differnt theories with an open mind.

Einstein said about the Quantum theory -"God does not trow dice". I personally agree with that sentence.

However, because the quantum theory cant give you a precise answer but gives you statistics that doesn't make it a bad tool to use when trying to understand our "universe". It is a tool.

**Consistent With Hologram Universe Theory**

Mon Mar 30 16:13:30 BST 2009 by ian

Mon Mar 30 16:13:30 BST 2009 by ian

Other "make sense of it all" theories like "The universe is all a hologram" are looking good too. And like fractals, holograms still give the same image as you look at smaller and smaller fragments of photo plate. (Just fuzzier so even Heizenberg would lilke these theories!)

We may actually be getting closer to an understanding of the true nature of the universe. That includes wave particle duality and quantum entenglement.

**Universe A Fractal Then?**

Mon Mar 30 16:16:40 BST 2009 by j

Mon Mar 30 16:16:40 BST 2009 by j

Well think of the fact that there should be a bigger version of you.....and a smaller....

OK I could accept that the universe is built in fractals but not that there is a bigger me, I am big enough.

**In Conversation With Nottale's Fractal Space-time?**

Mon Mar 30 16:20:59 BST 2009 by Kerri Welch

Mon Mar 30 16:20:59 BST 2009 by Kerri Welch

I am surprised Palmer's referenced paper does not cite Laurent Nottale's work, "Fractal Space Time and Microphysics: Toward a Scale Relativity" which similarly posits fractal space-time as a more general geometry than Euclid's or Riemann's. Nottale's fractal reformulation offers links between seemingly disparate theories beyond those within quantum theory, extending quantum theory's dialouge with classical mechanics and relativity. Certainly Palmer offers unique contributions, but the two could definitely benefit from a conversation with the another.

**Black Holes Destroy Information?**

Mon Mar 30 16:22:46 BST 2009 by j

Mon Mar 30 16:22:46 BST 2009 by j

Maybe my english is insufficient but I got the picture that this articke discribed a way that black holes wont destroy information.... No I will not read it agan to tired for that.

**Black Holes Destroy Information?**

Mon Mar 30 16:39:09 BST 2009 by Allen

Mon Mar 30 16:39:09 BST 2009 by Allen

Had the same reaction... HUH? Perhaps the paper explains (?).

**Incorrect Approach**

Mon Mar 30 17:13:41 BST 2009 by alphachapmtl

Mon Mar 30 17:13:41 BST 2009 by alphachapmtl

"..black holes destroy information.."

"the black hole can be described completely using just three quantities - its mass, angular momentum and electric charge".

This is true if we consider a black hole as a singularity. But a black hole is not actually a singularity, although it appears as such in our current (incomplete, non quantum, classical) theory of gravity.

**Mathematical Prestidigitation? Flim Flam?**

Mon Mar 30 17:59:00 BST 2009 by DMan

Mon Mar 30 17:59:00 BST 2009 by DMan

So far I've not seen a shred of compelling evidence to support this theory. On the other hand, quantum theory as it now stands has abundant evidence to support it. Take for instance, Alain Aspect's experiments that demonstrate nonlocality, reproduced elsewhere many times.

What I am hearing, however, is a group of ideologically motivated relativistic physicists desperately seizing on anything that can refute aspects of the universe that discomfort them.

The statement referring to a 'deterministic universe' that 'never exhibits any spooky effects' says more about those supporting the theory than it does about quantum theory.

So quantum theory is incomplete. Palmer's solution? Replace it with an even more incomplete theory that smacks more of mathematical prestidigitation than a serious contender.

Einstein was a genius, but he was also human. The fact that a genius opposes a theory that challenges a neat, comforting view where everything can be clearly quantified, does not mean the theory is wrong.

It can simply mean that in this case, Einstein reached the limits of his genius. Kurt Godel showed that there limits to what we can say for certain - but certain narcissistic ideologues view this as an assault on their egos.

Hence the reference to determinism - and a desire to return to the comforting certainties of the victorian/neo-newtonian physics.

**Black Holes Destroy Information?**

Mon Mar 30 18:19:05 BST 2009 by William Curry

Mon Mar 30 18:19:05 BST 2009 by William Curry

........but only if they exist.

**Universe A Fractal Then?**

Mon Mar 30 18:23:19 BST 2009 by Ivor Clark

Mon Mar 30 18:23:19 BST 2009 by Ivor Clark

Like you I dont want to be any bigger, but a fractal universe allows for life to exist on many levels, as we observe, and maybe , just maybe...higher beings??....Im no spiritualist or anything like that but I do wonder are we the epitomy of emergence from the Cosmos that can know itself, or are we just on one of those broccoli spears?. Men in Black comes to mind. I always find it intriguing that on the scale of things we seem to exist ( humans that is) right slap bang in the middle of the extremely small ( 10^-25m), and the extremely large (10^25m). Is that pure coincidence or a fractal expression?....

**Yes!**

Mon Mar 30 19:43:26 BST 2009 by Michael

Mon Mar 30 19:43:26 BST 2009 by Michael

I've never enjoyed using statistics and it...kinda seemed like a cop-out for quantum physics, like there was simply something very wrong with it.

Like the Ptolemaic system and the introduction of epicycles, 20th century scientists struggled to explain the bizarre nature of quantum theory using outdated perspectives.

I'm not smart or experienced enough to say that Palmer is bang-on, but I'm glad he's shaking things up. Hopefully this will finally get us on the right track (perspective-wise.) I certainly share the overwhelming enthusiasm of hearing his proposal!

**Mathematical Prestidigitation? Flim Flam?**

Mon Mar 30 19:48:52 BST 2009 by Cyrus

Mon Mar 30 19:48:52 BST 2009 by Cyrus

Agreed - well said.

I started feeling a little nauseous when I read the line you quoted regarding determinism. I felt downright ill when I saw how support the idea was getting in this forum.

**Wjat About Bell's Theorem?**

Mon Mar 30 20:09:07 BST 2009 by Nash Kamal

Mon Mar 30 20:09:07 BST 2009 by Nash Kamal

I thought Bell's theorem already settled the issue of hidden variables:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell's_Theorem

Not sure how this would reconcile with that.

**Good Direction**

Mon Mar 30 20:17:50 BST 2009 by AGC

Mon Mar 30 20:17:50 BST 2009 by AGC

After reading the excerpts from your book, it is clear that you dont understand the first thing about Quantum Theory. Have you seen a doctor?

**Fractals - Or Just A Particles**

Mon Mar 30 21:31:39 BST 2009 by Zephir

Mon Mar 30 21:31:39 BST 2009 by Zephir

Strictly speaking, from lower dimensionality of space-time at shorter scale doesn't follow, space-time has a fractal nature at all. The same observation can be made at water surface, where for shorter wavelengths we can observe a distortion of waves due the Brownian motion of water molecules. As the result, even at water surface very tiny 2D surface waves spreads like longitudinal 1D waves and nothing very strange is about it. It's not evidence for fractal or multiple Universe, just for the fact, space-time is composed of particle environment.

In this way, such observation is rather evidence of particle model of vacuum, then the fractal nature of it and every notion of fractals is irrelevant here. BTW every decreasing of dimensionality is manifestation of ISL violation for light and gravity and Lorentz symmetry violation as well (therefore the violation of string theory, which is based on special relativity and it assumes the existence of additional dimensions instead of reduction of their number), etc...

**Good Direction**

Mon Mar 30 21:37:42 BST 2009 by Daniel Hall

Mon Mar 30 21:37:42 BST 2009 by Daniel Hall

Nobody, knows the first thing about QM.

**Fractal Paradigm**

Mon Mar 30 21:38:02 BST 2009 by Paul Goddard

Mon Mar 30 21:38:02 BST 2009 by Paul Goddard

It is encouraging to see that a fractal model of the Universe is receiving some attention. When I suggested in 1994 that the Universe appears to possess fractal properties at all levels there was little response to the suggestion (Fractal Paradigm, New Scientist, letter 17 Dec 1994 pp 50 and 51) but already some of the predictions made in that letter have been borne out in practice. At the cosmic level super clusters of galaxies appear to be fractal rather than smooth.....and now we have a fractal model to explain quantum theory.

I will go further and suggest that it is the fractal nature of reality at all levels which creates the arrow of time. Moreover, if the Universe is considered to be a chaotic dynamical system in more dimensions than we actually observe then what we see is akin to a phase map ...and the phase maps of such systems are indeed fractals.

Paul Goddard MD

**Definitions?**

Mon Mar 30 20:28:32 BST 2009 by Doug117

Mon Mar 30 20:28:32 BST 2009 by Doug117

"Particles ...don't exist until you measure them."

What about particles in regions of space where there are no measurers (i.e., observers)? There must be some odd definition of "measure" here.

"..black holes destroy information.."

In my humble (yet lay) opinion, there is no such thing as "information" anywhere in the universe. It is a strictly human interpretation of things. You might say that DNA is "information" but I think DNA is a form of organized behavior on the part of the composite atoms. So, I guess I'm asking for a short explanation of what is meant by "information". (I don't have the time to go look it up.)

**I Like The Idea**

Mon Mar 30 20:31:19 BST 2009 by Skipjack

Mon Mar 30 20:31:19 BST 2009 by Skipjack

I quite like the idea. It fits with the familiar chaos theory and makes a very rounded picture. Now I am in no way a physicist and I can not give it any value beyond my personal emotional values.

I always found the general idea of quantum physics to be very unsatisfying. Besides that, it has so far failed to explain the very large, which is much better explained by relativity.

So yeah, this fractal/chaos theory idea does make sense to me.

**Deterministic Universe?**

Mon Mar 30 20:58:57 BST 2009 by Icarus

Mon Mar 30 20:58:57 BST 2009 by Icarus

If the universe is deterministic, then by what is it determined? There would have to be something responsible for its initial state - is that deterministic too? Can we have an infinite regression of determinism?

It makes more sense to suppose that there is genuine randomness in the universe, and that there are genuinely uncaused events, because the only alternative is an infinite regression of causality, and that seems impossible.

**Deterministic Universe?**

Mon Mar 30 21:12:23 BST 2009 by Cyrus

Mon Mar 30 21:12:23 BST 2009 by Cyrus

It makes even more sense to suppose that the randomness is a result of free will. Everything from atoms to galaxies CHOOSE their next move based on their current perspective.

**Invariant Set**

Mon Mar 30 21:13:25 BST 2009 by McGarr

Mon Mar 30 21:13:25 BST 2009 by McGarr

How does he prove that the universer has arrived at the invariant state?

**If**

Mon Mar 30 21:44:10 BST 2009 by Daniel Hall

Mon Mar 30 21:44:10 BST 2009 by Daniel Hall

If the universe is a fractal then what is it's dimension? More or less than 3?

**Deterministic Universe?**

Mon Mar 30 22:04:18 BST 2009 by Doug117

Mon Mar 30 22:04:18 BST 2009 by Doug117

Agree!

**Qm Arrogance**

Mon Mar 30 22:21:56 BST 2009 by . . /*

Mon Mar 30 22:21:56 BST 2009 by . . /*

There're few people I have known more arrogant than QM physicists; there're few intellectual constructs I have known more ridiculous than QM: two peacocks hand in hand.

**Qm Arrogance**

Mon Mar 30 22:24:17 BST 2009 by Chaos

Mon Mar 30 22:24:17 BST 2009 by Chaos

And now they try to pull Fractals into this pit.

**He's On To It. . In His Other Job.**

Mon Mar 30 22:43:41 BST 2009 by nick

Mon Mar 30 22:43:41 BST 2009 by nick

The final notes in this article might point out how quantum reality might behave, his fractal wheather forcasting software seams to adept to its own error bias.. If that was instead of wheater the quantum world, it would always adjust itself to the 'reality' it is in

**Given That Quantum Theory Throws Logic Out The Window**

Mon Mar 30 22:49:58 BST 2009 by James

Mon Mar 30 22:49:58 BST 2009 by James

I assume proving just about anything in quantum theory is possible.

**Good Direction**

Tue Mar 31 00:07:57 BST 2009 by Steaphen Pirie

Tue Mar 31 00:07:57 BST 2009 by Steaphen Pirie

Specifically, to what "first things" are you referring?

It is unfortunately quite common to attack ideas without providing the substance of why or how those ideas are incorrect.

Good wishes

Steaphen Pirie

**Good Direction**

Tue Mar 31 00:39:16 BST 2009 by Steaphen Pirie

Tue Mar 31 00:39:16 BST 2009 by Steaphen Pirie

My methodology (in brief):

Elements for comprehensive understanding:

1. Take "the most successful physical theory in history" (David Deutsch & others on quantum theory).

2. + evidence from everday reality (e.g. fractals distributions in biology / ferns, mountain ranges, galaxies etc).

3. + multiverse (e.g. Deutsch's "Single-particle interference phenomena unequivocally rule out the possibility that the tangible universe around us is all that exists".

= good inclusion of observable facts providing sufficient base for comprehensive world view.

Check: look for exceptions to the theory.

Keep checking. Invite advice of exceptions. Few takers so far, and none to date that have been congruent. Example: Wikipedia talk section of Zeno's Paradoxes http://www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeno%27s_paradoxes

**If**

Tue Mar 31 01:57:40 BST 2009 by Zephir

Tue Mar 31 01:57:40 BST 2009 by Zephir

Like Brownian motion or like clouds or Perlin noise

**Quantum Theory To Be Continued!**

Tue Mar 31 02:46:50 BST 2009 by Charles

Tue Mar 31 02:46:50 BST 2009 by Charles

The problem is that Bell's inequality shows that there is no logical manner in which we can explain the results of certain measurements. Or rather, as Huw price demonstrated a while ago (and Bell, incidentally, agreed), you can only explain them using advanced action - the well-accepted (but curiously overlooked) idea that the laws of physics operate identically under time reversal (or CPT reversal in the case of neutral kaon decay). This should have enabled physicists to explain all the "spooky" quantum effects without abandoning the idea of a reality that exists out there, without violating speciual relativity, and without having anything having to collapse when measured. But for some reason this suggestion has been largely ignored, which is why we still have convoluted explanations (like the above) of something that is probably rather simple.

**Quantum Theory To Be Continued!**

Tue Mar 31 02:48:52 BST 2009 by Charles

Tue Mar 31 02:48:52 BST 2009 by Charles

PS, I also distrust any theory founded on the idea that black holes destroy information. Since this violates unitarity and is the only physical process with this property - supposedly! - I think it should be treated with great suspicion.

**Believable**

Tue Mar 31 03:40:39 BST 2009 by Wesley Parish

Tue Mar 31 03:40:39 BST 2009 by Wesley Parish

I can believe this. Fractals describe a recursive state, and it applies practically everywhere else, so I can't see why it shouldn't also apply in relation to quantum mechanics and relativity.

Hmmm, how far would such a recursive state go? Now you've got me thinking - if the invariant set of the universe is fractal, there should be a wide set of possible conditions amid the even wider set of impossible conditions. Think Strange Attractors.

Best of all, now I've got solid mathematical and physical backing for a concept I've been playing around in a bit of SF I've been scribbling, a large-scale quantum environment (not a "universe" as such; more a "between-universe") with significantly different physical laws to the current universe, but where fractal effects are also large-scale and persistent.

**Spiral Nature**

Tue Mar 31 10:48:42 BST 2009 by Stig Ronning

Tue Mar 31 10:48:42 BST 2009 by Stig Ronning

The most effective and least energy consuming way of movement involves spirals. You see it in tornados and in the bottom of your sink or bath tub. This is stable and give smoth transitions.

By bringing back and forth spirals of energy the nature conserve both time and energy. Fractals have a lot of spiral looking "limbs" in their most energy conserving condition, it seems. From this there is not a long way to wave conditon or simulated particle condition.

Fractals are probably only a part of the answer - curling of energy into 3D-spirals are more exact, I think.

To keep energy "locked up" in a particle time probably cancel out inside an energy spiral - meaning time go both backwards and forwards at all instants.

Photons are probably spirals in wave conditons that are not "locked up", but a photon "never experience time".

**The Omniverse Is A F1 Fractal**

Tue Mar 31 11:50:20 BST 2009 by Mark Donaldson

Tue Mar 31 11:50:20 BST 2009 by Mark Donaldson

In the nested universes theory where this universe is filled with Planck size universes (subverses) and is just one of the Planck universes in another larger universe (superverse), ad infinitum, then the omniverse (some say metaverse) is an F1 fractal.

**Sounds Ok To Me. . .**

Tue Mar 31 12:39:27 BST 2009 by Paul

Tue Mar 31 12:39:27 BST 2009 by Paul

If energy and mass are the same thing, separated purely by geometry. Then fractals seem like a plausible way of packing a lot of geometry into a tiny space.

**Good Direction**

Tue Mar 31 16:40:22 BST 2009 by Ashley Oliver

Tue Mar 31 16:40:22 BST 2009 by Ashley Oliver

Well, if you come in here pushing your book at us, you must expect some abuse.

I'll take no.2 then ...

"2. + evidence from everday reality (e.g. fractals distributions in biology / ferns, mountain ranges, galaxies etc)."

There are *no* known fractals in 'everyday reality'. A fractal is a mathematical conceit. In 'everyday reality' we see some entities for which fractals can be usefully used as approximate models over a limited range of scales.

**Inconsistent**

Tue Mar 31 19:28:21 BST 2009 by Allen

Tue Mar 31 19:28:21 BST 2009 by Allen

Martin,

I think you'd agree that there is currently no claim of certainty in physics on the overall makeup of reality. ;-)

You choose to compare the warming issue in climatology and an issue in physics that is what we'd call "waaaayy out there." The mechanisms of climate change are better known -- at least we're discussing wind, standard thermodynamic, and physical effects that are uncontroversial (not, for example exotic things like quarks and black holes)

It is more reasonable for both Dyson and the majority of climatologists to make claims of certainty. Note: I'm not debating either side.

The climatology view is a solid consensus whereas the physics view on the nature of reality, is not. That's simply a fact and you, yourself noted that Dyson is against the grain. Again, just a fact.

Physicists (while they may have favorite horses in the race) are casting about for the best explanation on these broad topics.

Also, you've created two large categories from two single events and then asked them to be general models. That is a logical error.

1) The physicist Dyson questions the majority climatology view.

2) A single, and rather uniquely educated climatologist ADDS TO, the long list of theoretical ideas concerning the the cosmos.

If those things seem comparable to you... I have to wonder how you manage to sort your laundry. ;-)

I know you have a pet peeve... but really. You will admit that your argument is not something even YOU believe.

It is rather annoying for people (especially trolls under the influence of idiotic propaganda web sites) to construct arguments around what they wish for strictly rhetorical reasons. Reaching into this article for some dig against climate science is, again, annoying and patently dishonest. Martin, you should be ashamed.

**A New Kind Of Science**

Tue Mar 31 20:50:27 BST 2009 by Joshua Gertzen

Tue Mar 31 20:50:27 BST 2009 by Joshua Gertzen

Palmer should really check out Stephen Wolfram's work in his book "A New Kind of Science". While I haven't read it, I read a few articles about it back when it was released a few years ago. From what I recall, Wolfram has a very radical view of the world and all science that revolves around fractals and a more complex mathematical construct called finite state automata. FSA's are the foundation of most artificial intelligence research and they pop up in many other fields of research. In any case, his book is on my "plan to read" list, but it's huge and very complex material. Read more here: http://www.wolframscience.com/

**In Conversation With Nottale's Fractal Space-time?**

Tue Mar 31 21:54:45 BST 2009 by John

Tue Mar 31 21:54:45 BST 2009 by John

What if each order of magnitude represented equal units of distance?

Could scale, fractal or otherwise, be the fourth dimension and where time extends flowing in the same direction as the force of gravity, always inwards?

This would explain why the universe appears to be expanding.

It just popped into my head just then, honest!

**Serious Failure To Cite Previous Contributions**

Wed Apr 01 03:10:48 BST 2009 by Ervin Goldfain

Wed Apr 01 03:10:48 BST 2009 by Ervin Goldfain

It is hard to believe that Palmer has chosen to blatantly ignore some 20 years of work in fractal space-time theories and fractional dynamics (El Naschie, Ord, Nottale, Iovanne, Castro, Marek-Crnjak, Goldfain, Zaslavsky, Tarasov and many others). These contributions have been widely published in various physics journals and journals devoted to nonlinear dynamics and chaos.

**Fractal Mathematics As The Underlying Key To Everything**

Wed Apr 01 06:04:54 BST 2009 by Steven E. Romer

Wed Apr 01 06:04:54 BST 2009 by Steven E. Romer

I am a neuroscientist, but I have also been interested in physics for probably longer. There is an extremely interesting parallel to the ideas described in this article in some ideas I had to try to chip away at some difficult problems in cognitive neuroscience. I wrote a book "The Textbook of the Universe: The Genetic Ascent to God" in which I describe aspects of meaning and understanding in psychology and language that echo across levels much like a fractal coastline, or zooming in on a Mandelbrot set. Moreover, I show that these patterns are a sort of linguistic and meaning-like property built into nature which organisms with brains have learned to exploit. I call it the "logos echo". Very exciting -- this could be the "Consilience" that E.O. wilson talks about in his book of the same title. The coming together of all knowledge -- not just physics -- into a coherent framework.

**Believable**

Wed Apr 01 06:07:07 BST 2009 by Steven E. Romer

Wed Apr 01 06:07:07 BST 2009 by Steven E. Romer

Stop scribbling and WRITE! I seriously want to read that..

**Fractality:electrical Mechanism Of Gravity-paper 2006**

Wed Apr 01 08:04:43 BST 2009 by Implosion Group

Wed Apr 01 08:04:43 BST 2009 by Implosion Group

To be clear, the paper:

"Is Fractality: The Electrical Mechanism of Gravity"

by Dan Winter -

http://www.goldenmean.info/budapest08/physicsoverview.html

from the proceedings Budapest 2006 Unified Field Theories Conference

predates El Nashie's wonderful

'golden quantum field theory' quote:

"fractalization is the origin of gravity'

and Andre Linde:" The Fractal nature of space may actually be the cause of gravity"

**Quantum Theory To Be Continued!**

Wed Apr 01 10:50:40 BST 2009 by Elizabeth

Wed Apr 01 10:50:40 BST 2009 by Elizabeth

Because even space itself requires tensors of "dimensional energy" to dimensionalize space into more than 1 dimension (the surface of a strip of film without depth is one dimensional, the backside of that strip without depth would allow for a second dimension.) Only a third dimension would allow for a knot to be created. There are probabilities to consider in the creation of knots at the subatomic level. Such things happen spontaneously as ripples ripple & resonate through films and symmetries are broken. It is the breaking of symmetries that move things irreversibly to the next "event" topologically. Statistics is at work here; probabilities of events are happening. This is a child-like image, but is is helpful..

**Is The Romanesco Cauliflower Infinitely Fractal?**

Wed Apr 01 11:25:32 BST 2009 by jkforde

Wed Apr 01 11:25:32 BST 2009 by jkforde

IS the Romanesco cauliflower infinitely fractal?

**Articles On Palmers Climate Work**

Wed Apr 01 20:26:34 BST 2009 by Stephen Poole

Wed Apr 01 20:26:34 BST 2009 by Stephen Poole

Fractals are totally regular structures that can be described by a few lines of self-referential code. Turbulence may appear to be auto-similar at all scales, but it is in fact chaotic and therefore impossible to forecast. Quantum physics may well be turbulent?

**Universe A Fractal Then?**

Thu Apr 02 04:44:45 BST 2009 by Isaac

Thu Apr 02 04:44:45 BST 2009 by Isaac

From a young age I had a intuitive sense that the universe has fractal nature. I made up a word for this "fractlic" meaning something that has fractal properties...

**If**

Thu Apr 02 12:24:12 BST 2009 by rapidly convergent on 3

Thu Apr 02 12:24:12 BST 2009 by rapidly convergent on 3

@Daniel

if universe is fractal, it would be so defined in terms of what? fractal dimensions? and they in turn? defined in terms of what? yikes...back to that cheap sherry...

**Quantum Theory To Be Continued!**

Fri Apr 03 16:44:53 BST 2009 by James

Fri Apr 03 16:44:53 BST 2009 by James

sure that isn't because there is no God, rather than no dice...

**Fractals In Quantum Mechanics**

Fri Apr 03 21:14:26 BST 2009 by J. Oliviera

Fri Apr 03 21:14:26 BST 2009 by J. Oliviera

Fractals in quantum mechanics has a long history. It dates back to some twenty years ago. The first idea may have come from Richard Feynman. In or around 1982 to 1984, Garnett Ord in Canada coined the name fractal spacetime. Few years later a French astrophysicist Laurent Nottale discovered scale relativity and applied fractal spacetime to particle physics and cosmology. Starting from 1990, the Egyptian M. S. Elnaschie contributed extensively to this subject. He combined transfinite set theory with nonlinear dynamics and fractals and gave a resolution to the two-slit experiment with quantum particles. There is a vast literature on the subject. Many papers are published in Elsevier Journals and could be easily found in Elsevier Science Direct.

**The True Pioneers Of Fractals In Quantum Mechanics - Fracal Spacetime**

Fri Apr 03 22:34:34 BST 2009 by J. Krishna

Fri Apr 03 22:34:34 BST 2009 by J. Krishna

This is a direct comment to Kerri Welchs comment of March 30l, 2009 and to Ervin Goldfains comment dated April 1, 2009.

Mark Buchanan is an excellent science writer and of great integrity. I am sure he will take my comment seriously. I also hope that he will investigate the matter meticulously. Beside Laurent Nottale and Mohamed Elnaschie, Dr. Garnett Ord was the first to propose fractal spacetime as the micro spacetime of quantum mechanics. Ord, Nottale and Elnaschie endured a great deal of hardship in order to convey to us this wonderful idea which Buchanan has masterly outlined in his short article. These three pioneers were ridiculed, scorned and even maliciously defamed for nothing other than proposing the idea of fractals in quantum mechanics. Now that all of a sudden everyone seems to think it is a great idea, the least that honorable people should do is to rehabilitate these people and their school. It is regrettable how systematically these three pioneers and their associates have been intentionally ignored. Dr. Palmer is definitely a pioneer of nonlinear dynamics and chaos applications. He works in the Perimeter Institute. In other words, he should have known of the work of Renate Loll and her associates, Fay Dawker and Jan Ambjorn. He should have known about the controversy which surrounded their article in Scientific American exactly because they ignored the work of people like Ervin Goldfain, Ord, Nottale and Mohamed Elnaschie. We hope Mark Buchanan will look seriously into this issue and that he may draw the attention of the wider public to the true history of fractals in quantum mechanics.

**Palmer Is Not Inventing The Wheel**

Sat Apr 04 17:56:39 BST 2009 by Ed Ralph

Sat Apr 04 17:56:39 BST 2009 by Ed Ralph

Being interested in the science of complexity as applicable to fundamental physics for many years, I am wondering why could T. Palmer have missed citing the seminal contributions to fractals as fundamentally related to quantum mechanics, cosmology, spacetime and quantum gravity by a number of other scientists. To mention a few, we have Garnet Ord, Laurent Nottale and Mohamed El Naschie. More badly, how could the referee of the prestigious Royal Society Proceedings misses that?

If any one simply goggles for the keywords:

Fractal- double slit - quantum mechanics - spacetime combined or not with the names of the scientists mentioned above, one will get a dozen of a very relevant literature that dates back to as far as 1983. Palmer is certainly not

inventing the wheel t. He is adopting a different approach, however. It's plausibly naive to simply drop citing, to mention a few, the following literature:

1- Ord G. Fractal space-time. J Phys A Math Gen 1983;16:1869

2- Nottale L. Fractal Space-time and microphysics. World Scientific; 1993.

3- Ord G. Entwined paths, difference equations and the Dirac equation. Phys Rev A 2003;67: 0121XX3.

4- A new solution for the two-slit experiment. Chaos, Solitons & Fractals Volume 25, Issue 5, September 2005, Pages 935-939.

5- Non-Euclidean spacetime structure and the two-slit experiment

Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, Volume 26, Issue 1, October 2005, Pages 1-6

6- The two-slit experiment as the foundation of E-infinity of high-energy physics. Chaos, Solitons & Fractals Volume 25, Issue 3, August 2005, Pages 509-514

Skipping such a very relevant and seminal contributions is obviously unprofessional, to say the least.

**Palmers Invariant Set Is Rene Thoms Vak**

Sat Apr 04 20:18:50 BST 2009 by Alwain Frederich

Sat Apr 04 20:18:50 BST 2009 by Alwain Frederich

Ed Ralph did hit the nail on its head. Nevertheless I should make it clear that I do like the paper by Palmer. Indeed we have no quarrel with anything he mentions in it. As for the title The Invariant Set Hypothesis etc. it is also correct and says it all in very few words. The problem is that it is very well known since many years. To be precise, it is well known since Rene Thom, the well known French topologist published his book Structure Stability and Morphogenesis Thom called it the VAK. This is short for the Vague Attractor of Kolmogorov. In fact the Egyptian Mohamed Elnaschie wrote a paper entitled The VAK of vacuum fluctuation, spontaneous self-organization and complexity theory interpretation of high energy particle physics and the mass spectrum in 2003. I am aware of many papers where Elnaschie applied the VAK to quantum mechanical problems. The limit set is always a complex Cantor set worthy of unaccountably infinitely many points. Palmer had the right intuition but he is starting where at least Mohamed Elnaschie started some 20 years ago. Nevertheless, I am personally convinced that it was a genuine oversight. Let me tell you why

1.Dr. Palmer is a meteorologist and although he was always interested in quantum physics he could easily miss many relevant publications because of the sheer number of published papers nowadays.

2.Dr. Palmer is a senior and highly respected person and if I am not wrong he is a Fellow of the Royal Society. I dont think he published this paper for any reason other than real interest in science. He needs no promotion.

3.Unlike the case of Renate Loll and Jan Ambjorn, I doubt very much Dr. Palmer knew Prof. Elnaschie or met him anywhere.

Having said all that, the work of Dr. Palmer is not in vain. Not at all. It must come as encouraging that a senior and respected person airs essentially the same views which were expressed in almost identical language by so many of the enthusiasts of fractals in quantum physics. It is and despite everything, a lonely road by comparison to string theory or even loop quantum mechanics. If I may take the liberty to give an advice, then it would be to take the work on partially ordered sets and the computer simulation of Renate Loll and Fay Dawker very seriously. To read in depth the work of Elnaschie, Ord and Nottale is essential for connecting the basic ideas of Dr. Palmer with quantitative predictions made by the aforementioned authors.

**The Two Slit Experiment Using Fractals**

Sat Apr 04 20:44:57 BST 2009 by K. Boris

Sat Apr 04 20:44:57 BST 2009 by K. Boris

Palmer may have read the paper Einsteins dream and fractal geometry published 2005 in Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, vol. 24 pp. 1-5. But this was a very short summary of the work of our group. The two slit experiment which Palmer addresses in his paper was resolved by Elnaschie long ago. I give one of many papers published in Russia on this subject. The first paper is Nonlinear dynamics of the two slit experiment with quantum particles. It is published in a Russian Journal Problems of nonlinear Analysts in Engineering Systems No 2(26), vol. 12, 2006, University of Kazan, Tatarestan, the Russian Federation. The second paper is by Prof. Alfred M. Mukhamedov, also from the University of Kazan. This paper is entitled The two slit gedanken experiment in E-infinity theory and published in Chaos, Solitons & Fractals 33(2007) 1-4

**Quantum Theory To Be Continued!**

Mon Apr 06 02:31:58 BST 2009 by jason

Mon Apr 06 02:31:58 BST 2009 by jason

This talk about dimensions is ll rong and has been for many years. you can not posibly have a strip of anything that has length that does not have width and depth. this is not a three dimensionnal universe it is a one dimensional one. but I am sure the next question will be what about light. Ligt has no dimensions at all so it does not apply. if anything has height length or width the other do are automatically assumed because without any of the three the object is without dimensions of any kind much like light

**High Energy Physics**

Mon Apr 06 11:44:22 BST 2009 by Gerhard Klein

Mon Apr 06 11:44:22 BST 2009 by Gerhard Klein

Palmers paper has some amazing connections to set theory based quantum mechanics such as the Ur theory of K. Weizsaeker and its further development by D. Finkelstein, M. El Naschie and F. Dowker. Let me touch upon one important correspondence between a statement made in Palmers paper and that made in several publications by El Naschie.

Palmer states that contrafactual sets are in fact equal to the empty sets. In addition he links his invariant set to Goedels theorem. That is exactly what Mohamed El Naschie says in his paper called Statistical mechanics of multidimensional Cantor sets, Godel theorem and quantum spacetime, published in the Journal of the Franklin Institute, Vol. 330, No. 1, pp.199-211, 1993. In addition El Naschie showed that the empty set has a Menger-Uhrysohn dimension equal to minus one and a Hausdorff dimension equal to phi square, where phi is the golden mean. Finally he extends the Menger-Uhrysohn dimension to show that nothingness corresponds to the totally empty set. This totally empty set has a Menger-Uhrysohn dimension equal to minus infinity and a Hausdorff dimension equal to zero. This paper was published in Chaos, Solitons & Fractals and is entitled On certain empty Cantor sets and their dimension, Vol. 4, No. 2, pp. 293-296, 1994. The work of El Naschie was extended by Ting Zhong and S. Nada whose papers can be found on Elseviers Science Direct. I think Palmers paper opens the door to many undreamed of possibilities for quantum gravity. There is no doubt in our mind that Palmers background in nonlinear dynamics and chaos was the missing ingredient for a successful work in high energy physics.

**Black Holes Destroy Information?**

Mon Apr 06 17:46:13 BST 2009 by paul nash

Mon Apr 06 17:46:13 BST 2009 by paul nash

exactly!

**Palmers Invariant Set Is Rene Thoms Vak**

Mon Apr 06 18:01:25 BST 2009 by paul nash

Mon Apr 06 18:01:25 BST 2009 by paul nash

The word self-organization caught my eye here as it seems to me important. I have read Wolfram's new Kind of Science referred to above and it does not posit fractals as the key to the problem, rather it explores a multitude of examples of complex patterns in and outside nature. It appears that many distinguished physicists have looked favourably on the fractal concept but my own inclination is for a structure based on resonance, as that seems to underly many self-organising structures in nature, whereas fractals, despite popular analogies with coastlines etc, do not and more to the point I do not see why the fractal principle should operate at the primeval level Palmer is discussing. However, rthis is less than 2cs' worth from a mathematical point of view given my background!

**Important Breakthrough In Quantum Physics**

Tue Apr 07 19:28:56 BST 2009 by Moti Levy

Tue Apr 07 19:28:56 BST 2009 by Moti Levy

Thank you for this interesting article, that came to my attention via "slashdot".

I have downloaded the Palmer's article from Arxiv, and hope I will be able to understand some of it.

Anyhow, I feel that there is an inner truth in Palmer's work.

**Quantum Theory To Be Continued!**

Wed Apr 08 11:47:58 BST 2009 by Soylent

Wed Apr 08 11:47:58 BST 2009 by Soylent

Look up Bell's inequality.

If quantum mechanics is incomplete(i.e. there are hidden variables) then you necessarily sacrifice locality; every particle in the universe exchanges information with every other particle instantaneously.

This is a very unattractive feature since simultaneity isn't absolute in relativity.

**Quantum Theory To Be Continued!**

Wed Apr 08 11:53:05 BST 2009 by Soylent

Wed Apr 08 11:53:05 BST 2009 by Soylent

"Einstein said about the Quantum theory -"God does not trow dice". I personally agree with that sentence."

No matter how much you agree with it, it will force you to accept non-locality.

**Deterministic Universe?**

Wed Apr 08 19:45:08 BST 2009 by paul

Wed Apr 08 19:45:08 BST 2009 by paul

"Infinite regression of causality... impossible"-- Why exactly?

**New Era To Come**

Fri Apr 10 19:01:29 BST 2009 by Bjorn Korsvold

Fri Apr 10 19:01:29 BST 2009 by Bjorn Korsvold

I am triply enchanted and flabbergasted by the outstanding new paper by T.N. Palmer from the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasting. This paper with a somewhat too technical title of The Invariant Sets Hypothesis has some stunning connections with the work of three other scientists. First the philosophy of this paper is almost entirely based on the work of a philosopher of science from the University of Kassel in Germany, Hans Sommer. His paper Emergence of classical reality from a quantum mechanical background was published in 2009 but it existed on the net of Elseviers Science Direct since 2007. The second paper is even more astonishing because of the following. On page 7 under the sub title The Hawking Box Palmer attempts to derive a kind of strange attractor from a Hamiltonian system. This is of course normally impossible because a Hamiltonian system does not have dissipation. Therefore a Hamiltonian system could not possess any type of attractor. However Palmer invokes what he considers a brand new idea. Combining black holes with fractals, he finds some kind of strange attractor in a Hamiltonian system which he calls the invariant set. Now comes the surprising bit. M.S. El Naschie, about whom we have read so much lately, published a paper in Chaos Solitons &Fractals entitled Fractal Black Holes and Information. In other words, and if I am not mistaken, El Naschie had precisely the same idea of Palmer although they seem to have known nothing about each other. The third surprise comes from the fact that Palmers attractor and El Naschies attractor could both be explained without the need for black holes. All that you need for that is the VAK conjecture of Rene Thom. This conjecture dates back to the late 60s early 70s. Ten years or so ago El Naschie wrote several papers about the VAK but I am not sure how far he developed this idea. In all events the work of Hans Sommer, Palmer and El Naschie are more than worth looking at. This may be a new beginning for a very fruitful era of research on the foundation of quantum mechanics and its relation to high energy physics.

**A Vak Quartet**

Sat Apr 11 16:32:22 BST 2009 by Jean Pierre Bernard

Sat Apr 11 16:32:22 BST 2009 by Jean Pierre Bernard

Bjorn, please add one more to your trio to make it a quartet. The paper in question is yet again by Mohamed Elnashcie. It is called ominously The mass of the neutrinos via the energy of the cosmic background radiation of the VAK. Like all three papers you mentioned it is published in Chaos, Solitons & Fractals of Elsevier. I wish it would have been published somewhere else other than Elsevier because the paper deserves better. See vol. 18, Issue 2 pages 219-222. Here we have the VAK again. It is not only the source of quantum mechanics but of the mass of the neutrino. Amazingly, Elnaschie connects this subject with tHoofts mini black holes. It is as if Palmers brain and Elnaschies were synchronized like a twin chaotic but identical system. I am sure there are far more scientists who worked in the same direction but in a very low key manner. People are too frightened to come with something completely new. Palmer is a courageous man. He spelled it completely out. No hesitation and no excuses. Palmer himself is a well established member of the mainstream. It would be very difficult to try to sidetrack him or ignore him or belittle his work. I sincerely hope he will succeed where so many others have failed to bend the mainstream into the right direction.

**The Parisi-wu Chaotic Quantization And The Vak**

Sat Apr 11 18:39:36 BST 2009 by Momani Ahmed

Sat Apr 11 18:39:36 BST 2009 by Momani Ahmed

While concurring with those who find the paper by Palmer courageous and forward looking, it must be pointed out that it is the latest attempt in a series of many previous important publications. The pioneering work of Ord, Nottale and Elnaschie aside, there has been many books and monographs. In 2002 a World Scientific book by Christian Beck appeared. Beck used graph theoretical methods to connect coupled maps with forests describing higher order correlations. His approach is based on Parisi-Wu chaotic quantization. More accurately it is a second quantization. By adding white noise to a classical field, he achieved his goal. However, white noise is not optimal in this case. The inclusion of this noise forced Beck to rely almost entirely on computerized calculations. By contrast, EInfinity theory uses a very special kind of noisy quantization which is amenable to analytical exact calculations. This is the strength of Mohamed Elnaschies golden quantum field theory. Said differently, the VAK is not just another way to model Vacuum fluctuations. In conjunction with the golden mean random cantor sets, the VAK of Rene Thom becomes a central piece of a theory of everything

**To Jason**

Sun Apr 12 22:35:27 BST 2009 by Samuel

Sun Apr 12 22:35:27 BST 2009 by Samuel

Not being a full professor doesn't necessarily mean being unable to make good science. Being a physicist for a long time, I could learn from the few articles I read for El Naschie that he is doing a real fundamental physics in a superbly original approach. My advice to you Jason is that you focus on the scientific content and not on the titles and affiliations, which could be misleading.

**To Jason**

Mon Apr 13 13:13:32 BST 2009 by Samuel

Mon Apr 13 13:13:32 BST 2009 by Samuel

Well Jason I can't confirm about the professorship thing simply because I don't know enough about the man. More importantly, I don't care about titles. To be practical and conclusive, why don't you rebuttal his cookie-cutter stuff in a master review of your own and put it on the ArXive. You sound like a confident physicist who is able to make big judgements. However those judgements are lacking proof, scientific proof I mean. Waiting for your paper on the ArXive Jason.

**To Jason**

Mon Apr 13 14:20:20 BST 2009 by Jason

Mon Apr 13 14:20:20 BST 2009 by Jason

I'm not asking you to confirm, I'm telling you. Not caring about titles is fine; not caring about fraudulent claims to a title is not. It's up to El Naschie, not me, to submit his papers for refereeing.

**Not Scientific**

Mon Apr 13 15:12:02 BST 2009 by J. Aragon

Mon Apr 13 15:12:02 BST 2009 by J. Aragon

To full professor Jason, we hear what you say. Unfortunately we do not believe a single word of it. Your blog runs diametrically opposed to what you are intensively trying to convince us of. The nauseating picture you are displaying and the comments you make on your blog El Naschie Watch speaks volumes. It speaks volumes about your character, morality and what is more important, what you consider a scientific discussion. Your blog should more appropriately be called Jason, the peeping Tom. Of course we understand you are a hired hand. You are doing what you are paid to do. Never the less you cannot escape your responsibility for all these lies and obscenities. Since the New Scientist is tolerating what you are inundating us with on other sites, you are obviously here to stay. Therefore we are leaving. You can have it all for yourself.

**Palmers Limit Set And Ji Huan He Infinite Dimensional Polytopes**

Mon Apr 13 18:48:08 BST 2009 by John Gribbins

Mon Apr 13 18:48:08 BST 2009 by John Gribbins

Palmers theoretical breakthrough found an unexpected validation in the work of a Chinese Group working in the University of Shanghai. The paper Twenty-six dimensional polytope and high energy spacetime physics, published in Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, vol. 33, (2007), 5-13 is incredible. It is incredibly simple. How could we have overlooked it for so long? You see Palmers invariant set in Fig. 10 of this paper. Although he used only 26 dimensions like in string theory, he proved within the accuracy of a computer Palmers conjecture and Mohamed El Naschies VAK. Not only that he starts by a classical cube then moves to a four-dimensional world then a five-dimensional Kaluza-Klein Universe and so on. In other words, he shows as required in Palmers pioneering work, how the VAK or the invariant limit set arises from classicality to use Palmers vocabulary. The senior author of the paper is an ingenious Chinese Computer Scientist, Prof. Je Huan He. He is the editor in chief of a Non Linear Dynamic Journal published in Israel. It is a wonderful new world, Egyptian, Chinese and Israeli working together to validate the theoretical work of a leading British meteorologist who originally wanted to work in super gravity. I can only full heartedly thank them all and thank the New Scientist for drawing our attention to a paper which could have been buried in the prestigious proceedings of the Royal Society without the wider public noticing it.

John Gribbins

**Elnaschie Is A Full Professor And He Is Probably Giving Liars Enough Rope To Hang Themselves**

Mon Apr 13 19:14:30 BST 2009 by Harun Prasadi

Mon Apr 13 19:14:30 BST 2009 by Harun Prasadi

I know of at least one and probably two German science writers who will go to prison for giving false information. It is a matter of court record that Prof. Elnaschie is a full professor. He was hired first at a very young age as an assistant professor. Five years later he was promoted to associate professor and another five years later to a full professor in the same university. In between he was appointed in the U.S.A. as a distinguished professor. I am puzzled why he does not answer those who are defaming him. I guess it is first his deep contempt for them. Second no one has the right to ask anyone to ask anything without being entitled to such a question. Third he is probably giving these people enough rope to hang themselves with. Fourth who is in Gods name this Jason to be entitled to disrupt a scientific debate by injecting total nonsense into a respectable site. Is it not enough what Mr. Jason is writing in his own blog. Is it necessary that he use the New Scientist as an overflow tub for his quite honestly disgusting blog called El Naschie watch. Be it what it may I am sure I am not the only one asking the people responsible for this site to immediately delete any comment which is not pertinent to science and respectful of our profession. I would not mind if they delete my own comment if they so wish as long as they are vigilant as far as deleting any other non scientific comment.

**Invariant Set**

Mon Apr 13 21:50:34 BST 2009 by Tom

Mon Apr 13 21:50:34 BST 2009 by Tom

I think its because, once you are on the invariant state, you never leave it so for any finite amount of time that you start off it, you spend an infinity on it, so everything is almost arrived at the invariant state.

**Invariant Set**

Mon Apr 13 21:53:16 BST 2009 by Tom

Mon Apr 13 21:53:16 BST 2009 by Tom

oops I meant almost certainly arrived. ie its probability of us being on the invariant set is 1

**If**

Mon Apr 13 22:05:19 BST 2009 by Tom

Mon Apr 13 22:05:19 BST 2009 by Tom

I'm fairly certain that the hypothesis is not that the universe is a fractal, but that the evolution of states in the universe (e.g. motion of orbiting planets) follows chaotic paths which tend to a fractal shape if you trace out the motion.

So no big/small versions of us, just an observation of the form of the path of the universe over time. The dimension of the fractal would depend on the set of states you choose to observe I think.

**Palmers Invariant Set And El Naschie Klienian Groups**

Tue Apr 14 11:45:55 BST 2009 by B. Shandra

Tue Apr 14 11:45:55 BST 2009 by B. Shandra

Thank you for drawing our attention to the paper by Prof. Ji Huan He. There is a host of other interesting papers regarding the Limit Set of Klienian Groups and Modular Groups in connection with high energy physics which may relate to Palmers as well as the work of He. Both papers are published in 2003, vol 16 of Chaos, Solitons & Fractals. The author is a Prof. of Electronics in the University of Guildford, England, United Kingdom. As for the VAK of El Naschie the best up to date account of this subject was given by the Director of Berla Institute in Hyderabad, India, B. G. Sidharth. The Book edited by him is titled Frontiers of Fundamental Physics, published by Universities Press. The paper in question is Complexity theory interpretation of high energy physics and elementary particle mass spectrum. The publisher is in India and it may be difficult to get in the USA. However you could write to Prof. Sidharth to get a free of charge copy.

**Palmer Should Be Commended**

Wed Apr 15 20:46:19 BST 2009 by H. Anwar

Wed Apr 15 20:46:19 BST 2009 by H. Anwar

A new guiding light in the quest for a yet deeper foundation of quantum mechanics is at long last among us. Palmers paper is simply superb.

**The Fluid Turbulence Of Palmer Is The Quantum Mechanics Of God**

Sun Apr 19 20:21:36 BST 2009 by Simon Butcher

Sun Apr 19 20:21:36 BST 2009 by Simon Butcher

While on his death bed a black humor joke says that Werner Heisenberg, the inventor of quantum mechanics said he had two questions to ask God when he meets him. The first question is why turbulence and the second question is why quantum mechanics. He then added I think God may be able to answer only the second question. Palmers work completes this pleasantry by making a profound statement or a far reaching discovery namely that fluid turbulence is nothing but a hint by God to theoretical physicists that turbulence is a visible macroscopic model for the real mathematics behind the microscopic quantum mechanics. The situation according to Palmer could be interpreted by us naively as follows. At low energy with low speed fluid motion is laminare like a smooth spacetime geometry. At high energy however the motion turns into a violent chaotic dynamic similar to fractal geometry. This is the geometry of quantum spacetime which is the same as the specialized timeless phase space of quantum mechanics. The picture so afforded is fascinating and was produced in 2005 on a computer using wavelets technique. This work was done by Prof. Gerrardo Iovane at the Dept. of Mathematics and Computer Sciences in the University of Salerno Italy. This picture of turbulent fractal phase space adorns the cover of all the 2006 issues of the Elsevier journal Chaos Solitons and Fractals. The theory behind the work of Iovane is essentially that of a fuzzy Kahler K3 manifold. This is a foliated or fractal like classical K3 manifold akin to that used for compactification in super string theory. Another paper which was published in 2005 vol. 26 p. 1 to 6 of the said journal constitutes a theoretical resolution of the two slit experiment with quantum particles using the above mentioned fuzzy Kahler manifold. The title of this paper is Non Euclidean spacetime structure and the two slit experiment. In this paper we see the mystery of the two slit experiment evaporating. The treatment is quantitative but the philosophy behind it is completely consistent with the philosophy with the work of Palmer. In this sense the work of Palmer may be regarded as the most important contribution in this field since the inception of quantum mechanics by Heisenberg, Bohr, Schrodinger and Dirac.

**The Palmer Limit Set Is Appreciated In Kazan University**

Mon Apr 20 13:53:16 BST 2009 by Mikhail Kralov

Mon Apr 20 13:53:16 BST 2009 by Mikhail Kralov

I agree with the last comments of Simon. On the other hand the best two papers in my opinion on fundamental quantum mechanics and the two slit thought experiment with quantum particles is due to a Russian from Kazan University. Interestingly hyperbolic geometry was invented by the famous director of Kazan University many decades ago. The two papers are published in Chaos Solitons and Fractals. The first is The two slit gedanken experiment in E infinity theory Vol. 33 year 2007 pages 1 to 4. The second is in the same volume pages 717 to 724. The Palmer limit sets are in the terminology of the author Prof. Alfred Mukhamedov nothing but undistorted fractal states of quantum equilibrium. In all of these works the most important notion is clearly identifying the vacuum with the empty set of transfinite set theory which is due to Georg Cantor. To give the empty set a numerical value was a great achievement of two mathematicians Paul Urysohn and Karl Menger.

**Didn't Susskind Say. . .**

Tue Apr 21 15:35:19 BST 2009 by thomas foolery

Tue Apr 21 15:35:19 BST 2009 by thomas foolery

didn't susskind prove that information was NOT lost in a black hole?

**Thomas Is Right But Palmer Is Right Too**

Tue Apr 21 16:32:41 BST 2009 by John Hemmings

Tue Apr 21 16:32:41 BST 2009 by John Hemmings

You are deadly right. Susskind as well as Gerrard tHooft reasoned that information is not lost in a black hole. Hawking on the other hand insisted for decades that it is lost. The controversy was scientific and friendly but really Hawking was extremely stubborn. It was clear he was wrong but he would not admit it. Susskind said he lost most of his hair tearing it out explaining to Hawkins that he was wrong. Two years or so Hawking admitted with fanfare that he was wrong. Everyone in Cambridge said how great he was because he published so many wrong papers and then how great he was because he published so many papers correcting his mistake. Jokes aside Palmers model remains exact and correct with or without his black holes. The ingenuity of Palmers proposal is that he had the correct topological intuition. Palmer discovered the VAK without discovering it. When he speaks of an invariant limit set he means a strange attractor. But the strange attractor cannot be strange attractor if we are dealing with quantum mechanics. Therefore he needs a strange attractor without dissipation. Well there is no strange attractor without dissipation. Hamiltonian systems do not have attractors nor of course strange attractors. But here is the ingenuity of Palmer. He intuitively extended the notion of attractor to Hamiltonian system with fractal structure. In doing so he rediscovered or discovered by himself the vague attractor of Kolomogorov or the VAK. The VAK was discovered by topologists in Russia and recognized by Rene Thom to be the stationary state of quantum mechanics. Not many years ago Georg Nicolis who worked very closely and extensively with Nobel laureate Ilya Prigogine wrote a paper on the subject in Chaos Solitons and Fractals but I do not remember the year or the volume. Mohamed El Naschie reasoned many years ago that the iterated functions are Hamiltonian vague attractors. Using this analogy he tried to explain the two slit experiment. For instance the three point chaos game produces a Sierpinski gasket as a Hamiltonian vague attractor for the game. A year or so later El Naschie realized the final solution which is the VAK and he may be the first to have ever introduced the notion of VAK to high energy physics. I guess there must have been many people who thought along similar lines. It is difficult to say today how we could have overlooked for so long the fundamental role played by the VAK in quantum mechanics. Palmers paper is an eye re-opener. His lucid informal style of explanation is particularly important. The VAK was with us for many years now but nobody wanted to read it. I think Palmers paper will change the situation.

**Universe A Fractal Then?**

Wed Apr 22 05:38:45 BST 2009 by cooladdress

Wed Apr 22 05:38:45 BST 2009 by cooladdress

To demonstrate we are in the middle of two possibly infinitely distant poles is a little hard, but never the less it could have something to do with the speed of life as we know it and the speed of information flow. If my brain was as big as the galaxy it would take millions of light years before I even new I needed to scratch my lower red solar system.

**Fractal Dimensions Vs Multiple Dimensions**

Wed Apr 22 06:09:32 BST 2009 by tony

Wed Apr 22 06:09:32 BST 2009 by tony

I think Tim Palmer is spot on with his approach the concept of Fractional dimensions may actualy be an alternate way of considering the ideas of additional dimensions. I expect that the universal laws that we observe are the result of the fractional manifestations of laws and dimensions we are familular with (well I know what I am talking about :-)

**Average Symmetry Is Needed For Palmers Limit Set Attractor**

Wed Apr 22 12:03:59 BST 2009 by H. Chaplain

Wed Apr 22 12:03:59 BST 2009 by H. Chaplain

Tony is correct. If this is the Tony I know then he is an expert in symmetry in higher dimensions. Here to you have to take statistical symmetry. This is an average symmetry in the sense of the work done by Mohamed El Naschie in a paper published in the old European journal of physics which was called at that time Neuvo Cimento. The combination of fuzzy symmetry which means fractal average symmetry and fractional dimension as well as the VAK gives the final answer to our quest for unification. This is the subject of many recent articles by many authors published worldwide particularly in an Elsevier journal called Chaos Solitons and Fractals.

**Average Symmetry Is Needed For Palmers Limit Set Attractor**

Fri Apr 24 02:27:22 BST 2009 by Jason

Fri Apr 24 02:27:22 BST 2009 by Jason

Actually, El Naschie's work is widely known to be numerological twaddle. The Elsevier journal called Chaos Solitons and Fractals, of which he has for years been Editor in Chief, is in scandal for publishing nonsense papers -- including hundreds by El Naschie himself!

**Thomas Is Right But Palmer Is Right Too**

Fri Apr 24 07:14:52 BST 2009 by Jason

Fri Apr 24 07:14:52 BST 2009 by Jason

Hi. Actually among serious physicists El Naschie is not taken seriously. His formulaic papers all resemble a high school project on the golden ratio.

**The Palmer Limit Set Is Appreciated In Kazan University**

Fri Apr 24 07:27:14 BST 2009 by Jason

Fri Apr 24 07:27:14 BST 2009 by Jason

Hi, Actually so-called E-infinty theory is a vacuous hoax that El Naschie, it's originator, may or may not believe in himself. But nobody serious in the physics world does. You may not be aware that Chaos Solitons and Fractals is enmeshed in scandal for publishing huge numbers of papers with apparently little or no peer review. Many but not all are by El Naschie -- it's editor in chief.

**The Fluid Turbulence Of Palmer Is The Quantum Mechanics Of God**

Fri Apr 24 07:42:40 BST 2009 by Jason

Fri Apr 24 07:42:40 BST 2009 by Jason

Hi. The paper you mention, Non Euclidean spacetime structure and the two slit experiment, is by M.S. El Naschie, who is not taken seriously in the physics world. Not only does he publish huge volumes of nonsense papers, he is notorious for claiming academic affiliations and qualifications he doesn't have.

Just as bad is the rest of the full citation: Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, Volume 26, Issue 1, October 2005, Pages 1-6. Everything published in this scandal-enmeshed journal is suspect. Many articles appeared with unsatisfactory or no peer review, including hundreds by El Naschie himself. He was apparently able to get away with this because he was editor in chief.

**Palmers Invariant Set And El Naschie Klienian Groups**

Fri Apr 24 07:46:41 BST 2009 by Jason

Fri Apr 24 07:46:41 BST 2009 by Jason

Hi. Neither El Naschie papers nor anything published in Chaos, Solitons and Fractals fractals should be assumed to be correct. Use Google.

**Fractality:electrical Mechanism Of Gravity-paper 2006**

Fri Apr 24 07:57:08 BST 2009 by Jason

Fri Apr 24 07:57:08 BST 2009 by Jason

Hi, you may want to search youtube for Dan Winter videos. El Naschie is silly but Dan Winter makes El Naschie look like Einstein. What you will find is Dan Winter lecturing that DNA is the cause of gravity and that a reptilian race conquered most of the "planetoids in the Orion sector". When it comes to basic science, well, Dan Winter believes that stars make hydrogen. But don't take my word for it. Look him up on youtube, as I said.

**Not Scientific**

Fri Apr 24 08:12:41 BST 2009 by Jason

Fri Apr 24 08:12:41 BST 2009 by Jason

Someone pays me? I wish. No, I just feel morally obligated to set the record straight when commenters pretend El Naschie is a serious scientist. Are you aware he claims he'd have a Nobel prize except that the Nobel comittee is racist against Arabs, Muslims, and people named Mohamed?

**To Jason**

Fri Apr 24 08:23:25 BST 2009 by Jason

Fri Apr 24 08:23:25 BST 2009 by Jason

El Naschie, if you look at his papers, claims academic affiliations randomly. He's in legal trouble for it, too. Which is not to say he won't win in court. He's a legally bullying hyperenlawyered gazillionaire heir. As to content: His papers are silly. You won't find a single well-regarded physicist or mathematician who says otherwise.

**In Conversation With Nottale's Fractal Space-time?**

Fri Apr 24 08:29:00 BST 2009 by Jason

Fri Apr 24 08:29:00 BST 2009 by Jason

Unfortunately for Nottale he's well-known to be a collaborator with M.S. El Naschie, which destroys his credibility, perhaps unfairly, I don't know.

**Fractals In Quantum Mechanics**

Fri Apr 24 08:35:29 BST 2009 by Jason

Fri Apr 24 08:35:29 BST 2009 by Jason

The Elsevier journal most of that nonsense is published in is Chaos, Solitons and Fractals. Neither the jounal nor El Naschie has any credibility; indeed association with them can be expected to be career-threatening. Don't take my word for it. Google is your friend.

**The True Pioneers Of Fractals In Quantum Mechanics - Fracal Spacetime**

Fri Apr 24 08:42:46 BST 2009 by Jason

Fri Apr 24 08:42:46 BST 2009 by Jason

El Naschie is not taken seriously by any prominent physicist. Not a single one. He writes nonsense papers, hundreds of them. By associating themselves with him I am afraid Ord and Nottale have done themselves a disservice.

**Serious Failure To Cite Previous Contributions**

Fri Apr 24 08:50:44 BST 2009 by Jason

Fri Apr 24 08:50:44 BST 2009 by Jason

El Naschie is the central and most well-known figure of those you mention. The others are known, unfortunately for them, primarily through association with him. I say unfortunately for them because not a single prominent physicist takes El Naschie seriously. El Naschie, by the way, in interviews in the Arabic media, likes to claim he'd have a Nobel prize if not for racism. Don't take my word. Use Google.

**Palmer Is Not Inventing The Wheel**

Fri Apr 24 08:55:03 BST 2009 by Jason

Fri Apr 24 08:55:03 BST 2009 by Jason

Neither M.S. El Naschie nor anything in Chaos, Solitons and Fractals should be taken seriously. Google is your friend. (Not goggles as Ed Ralph suggests -- perhaps he's wearing beer goggles?)

**Palmers Invariant Set Is Rene Thoms Vak**

Fri Apr 24 08:59:16 BST 2009 by Jason

Fri Apr 24 08:59:16 BST 2009 by Jason

"To read in depth the work of Elnaschie, Ord and Nottale is essential for connecting the basic ideas of Dr. Palmer with quantitative predictions made by the aforementioned authors."

To read the work of El Naschie in depth is to invite a busted gut from excessive laughter. Careful!

**Elnaschie Is A Full Professor And He Is Probably Giving Liars Enough Rope To Hang Themselves**

Fri Apr 24 09:06:04 BST 2009 by Jason

Fri Apr 24 09:06:04 BST 2009 by Jason

"I am puzzled why he does not answer those who are defaming him."

Perhaps it's because they're telling the truth? Thanks for your assurance that he was made a full professor, but it's not on his curriculum vitae. It's just a throway line on his website that he thought he could get away with and is now too embarassed to retract.

**High Energy Physics**

Fri Apr 24 09:11:54 BST 2009 by Jason

Fri Apr 24 09:11:54 BST 2009 by Jason

Nothing by El Naschie, nothing in Chaos Solitons and Fractals and nothing on E-infinity theory should be taken without a huge grain of salt. Indeed a whole sack of salt. Ask any well-regarded physicist.

**The Two Slit Experiment Using Fractals**

Fri Apr 24 09:18:04 BST 2009 by Jason

Fri Apr 24 09:18:04 BST 2009 by Jason

Chaos, solitons and fractals is so poorly regarded, so enmeshed in scandal, that publishing there verges on career poison. Google it. And Google El Naschie while you're at it. He's not a serious scientist.

**New Era To Come**

Fri Apr 24 09:25:12 BST 2009 by Jason

Fri Apr 24 09:25:12 BST 2009 by Jason

What is it with all these advertisements for the silly El Naschie and his discredited journal Chaos, solitons and fractals? It's got a very organized campaign sort of feel to it.

**A Vak Quartet**

Fri Apr 24 09:33:30 BST 2009 by Jason

Fri Apr 24 09:33:30 BST 2009 by Jason

Try to find, say, any physics Nobel laureat, any physics professor from a US Ivy League school, from Cambridge or Oxford in the UK, etc., who takes El Naschie seriously. Good luck with that.

**The Parisi-wu Chaotic Quantization And The Vak**

Fri Apr 24 09:46:43 BST 2009 by Jason

Fri Apr 24 09:46:43 BST 2009 by Jason

"EInfinity theory uses a very special kind of noisy quantization which is amenable to analytical exact calculations. This is the strength of Mohamed Elnaschies golden quantum field theory."

One of the hallmarks of crackpot physics is that it always claims to be simpler than conventional competitors. And it is, because the crackpots don't know much math.

**Average Symmetry Is Needed For Palmers Limit Set Attractor**

Fri Apr 24 16:56:13 BST 2009 by J. Hemmings

Fri Apr 24 16:56:13 BST 2009 by J. Hemmings

Actually this is scientifically insane. I mean this nonsense claimed by Jason that the VAK or statistical symmetry is numerology. The VAK is a concept. It has nothing to do with numbers. The VAK is the vague attractor of Kolmogorov. El Naschie took the notion over to high energy physics. That is all. Average symmetry is a statistical concept. It connects symmetry with statistical sampling or coarse graining. The urge of Jason to be abusive far outweighs any logic which may exist in his head. This is the only rational conclusion from the nonsense he is saying.

**Could You Ban Mr. Jason Please**

Fri Apr 24 17:28:58 BST 2009 by H. Chaplain

Fri Apr 24 17:28:58 BST 2009 by H. Chaplain

The New Scientist has removed the improper abusive comments of Mr. Jason again and again. The quality of the man is more than obvious from his blog of which he is so proud. What is well known to him is more than doubtful to us. Mr. Jason has been ousted from Scientific American because of the obscenity he injected into a scientific debate so all we can do is apologize to the New Scientist that such people like Mr. Jason exist. In fact his mere existence is unforgivable. All the same this is something for which creation is responsible and not anyone else. If the New Scientist could be so kind as to note the computer ID number of Jason and forbid him from commenting in this site or direct him to a site where the likes of him are welcome then this would be tremendous and the rest of us can continue with a proper scientific debate. We are all capable of making up our own minds and have no interest in his obsessive campaigns.

**To Ns Admins. Please Clear Jason's Venom**

Fri Apr 24 19:03:50 BST 2009 by Samuel

Fri Apr 24 19:03:50 BST 2009 by Samuel

The offensive, off topic and clueless comments of this guy called Jason are distorting the beautiful scientific dialogues running through many other comments. Jason's comments are absolutely unscientific, irrelevant, aggressive and thus causing a lot of disturbing noise throughout the otherwise respectful commentary thread. I strongly request NS admins to ban this guy or automatically remove his nonsense promptly if possible. The commentary facility is to discuss the article subject and not to personally, explicitly and persistently attack people. This is as far as I know.

**Absolute Lies And Defamation By A Man Called Jason**

Fri Apr 24 20:42:19 BST 2009 by Keyes

Fri Apr 24 20:42:19 BST 2009 by Keyes

The circulatory argument against Elnaschie was invented by John Baez. He is the source of all this defamation. After he achieved what he set to do, he disappeared and went in hiding. Now he let his little boys complete the job. One of these little little boys is Jason and he should be banned from commenting in any respectable site.

**First Scientific American And Now New Scientist**

Fri Apr 24 20:57:17 BST 2009 by Andre

Fri Apr 24 20:57:17 BST 2009 by Andre

What a pity, the rats of Jason and the rest escaped the fire in Scientific American and are infesting their disease in the New Scientist. The New Scientist should ban all of them from writing here. They have done enough harm everywhere else.

Second Attack Of John Baez Against The New Scientist And Definitely Not The Last

Fri Apr 24 21:23:13 BST 2009 by Areej

Dr. John Baez described himself as a one man internet army. He surely commands an army of rats. It is not the first time that he attacks the New Scientist. How large is the ransom this time John?

**Unprecedented Attack**

Fri Apr 24 21:37:31 BST 2009 by Saddiqi

Fri Apr 24 21:37:31 BST 2009 by Saddiqi

For me the proof that Elnaschie must be a righteous man and a great scientist is this unprecedented and systematic attack on him using nothing but nonsense and foul language.

**The Great Einstein Was Not Exposed To Such Vicious Attacks**

Fri Apr 24 22:01:11 BST 2009 by Flores

Fri Apr 24 22:01:11 BST 2009 by Flores

Even the great Einstein was not attacked with such viciousness as John Baez and his servants are attacking El Naschie. Does this mean that Mohamed El Naschie constitutes more danger to you than Einstein to the Nazis. Very strange indeed.

**Palmer & Elnaschie Use Borel Numbers And Borel Sets**

Fri Apr 24 22:15:46 BST 2009 by Renee

Fri Apr 24 22:15:46 BST 2009 by Renee

There are those who would like to derail every scientific discussion to the irrelevant and mud throwing. It is a well established fact that Tim Palmer and Mohamed Elnaschie use number theory. Both of them based their fundamental theory on numbers and not on numerology. The amazing point is that both of them use Borel theory. To understand what this means exactly, you have to read the papers.

**Scientific Discussions Take Place In Scientific Journals And Not Blogs**

Fri Apr 24 22:24:51 BST 2009 by Areej

Fri Apr 24 22:24:51 BST 2009 by Areej

What these people are writing is very distasteful. Jason seems to be a sub-puppet of the self appointed guardian of internet science, Dr. John Baez.

**M. El Naschie Is Being Defamed Like No One Before In The History Of Science By Internet Hooligans**

Fri Apr 24 22:29:31 BST 2009 by Islam

Fri Apr 24 22:29:31 BST 2009 by Islam

We Muslims can recall very well what the infidels have done to many of our most respected heroes. It started by torturing the prophet Muhamed. Maybe it is not a coincidence that El Naschie first and middle name are Mohamed Saladdin. There are those forces in the Agnostic world who see someone like El Naschie as a danger for their plans. A man who never drank alcohol and never smoked although he grew up in Europe is quite unusual. But that is not what they are afraid of. What they are afraid of is clear and I do not need to elaborate it here. I wish you all the best Mohamed El Naschie and you will win at the end. That I am sure of.

Second Attack Of John Baez Against The New Scientist And Definitely Not The Last

Fri Apr 24 21:23:13 BST 2009 by Areej

Dr. John Baez described himself as a one man internet army. He surely commands an army of rats. It is not the first time that he attacks the New Scientist. How large is the ransom this time John?

**Unprecedented Attack**

Fri Apr 24 21:37:31 BST 2009 by Saddiqi

Fri Apr 24 21:37:31 BST 2009 by Saddiqi

For me the proof that Elnaschie must be a righteous man and a great scientist is this unprecedented and systematic attack on him using nothing but nonsense and foul language.

**The Great Einstein Was Not Exposed To Such Vicious Attacks**

Fri Apr 24 22:01:11 BST 2009 by Flores

Fri Apr 24 22:01:11 BST 2009 by Flores

Even the great Einstein was not attacked with such viciousness as John Baez and his servants are attacking El Naschie. Does this mean that Mohamed El Naschie constitutes more danger to you than Einstein to the Nazis. Very strange indeed.

**Palmer & Elnaschie Use Borel Numbers And Borel Sets**

Fri Apr 24 22:15:46 BST 2009 by Renee

Fri Apr 24 22:15:46 BST 2009 by Renee

There are those who would like to derail every scientific discussion to the irrelevant and mud throwing. It is a well established fact that Tim Palmer and Mohamed Elnaschie use number theory. Both of them based their fundamental theory on numbers and not on numerology. The amazing point is that both of them use Borel theory. To understand what this means exactly, you have to read the papers.

**Scientific Discussions Take Place In Scientific Journals And Not Blogs**

Fri Apr 24 22:24:51 BST 2009 by Areej

Fri Apr 24 22:24:51 BST 2009 by Areej

What these people are writing is very distasteful. Jason seems to be a sub-puppet of the self appointed guardian of internet science, Dr. John Baez.

**M. El Naschie Is Being Defamed Like No One Before In The History Of Science By Internet Hooligans**

Fri Apr 24 22:29:31 BST 2009 by Islam

Fri Apr 24 22:29:31 BST 2009 by Islam

We Muslims can recall very well what the infidels have done to many of our most respected heroes. It started by torturing the prophet Muhamed. Maybe it is not a coincidence that El Naschie first and middle name are Mohamed Saladdin. There are those forces in the Agnostic world who see someone like El Naschie as a danger for their plans. A man who never drank alcohol and never smoked although he grew up in Europe is quite unusual. But that is not what they are afraid of. What they are afraid of is clear and I do not need to elaborate it here. I wish you all the best Mohamed El Naschie and you will win at the end. That I am sure of.

**Average Symmetry Is Needed For Palmers Limit Set Attractor**

Sat Apr 25 06:02:48 BST 2009 by Jason

Sat Apr 25 06:02:48 BST 2009 by Jason

It's El Naschie's papers that are formulaic numerology, I am sorry to say. He adds various integers together and then remarks at length as to the ostensibly remarkable value of the sum. Sad but true.

**Could You Ban Mr. Jason Please**

Sat Apr 25 06:08:46 BST 2009 by Jason

Sat Apr 25 06:08:46 BST 2009 by Jason

I understand you think that criticizing El Naschie for nonsense papers, false affiliations etc., is abuse, but it isn't. You Naschie supporters got yourselves banned from that other board, and you know perfectly well why. I had nothing to do with it.

**To Ns Admins. Please Clear Jason's Venom**

Sat Apr 25 06:14:16 BST 2009 by Jason

Sat Apr 25 06:14:16 BST 2009 by Jason

"The commentary facility is to discuss the article subject"

You guys are the ones that keep bringing up El Naschie, who has nothing to do with this article. Just trying to clear the air.

**Absolute Lies And Defamation By A Man Called Jason**

Sat Apr 25 06:21:15 BST 2009 by Jason

Sat Apr 25 06:21:15 BST 2009 by Jason

I hope the moderators understand what's happened here. The very rich self-promoting pseudo-scientist El Naschie sent armies of commenters, many of them sock puppets, to advertise himself on this board and the Scientific American board. One of them, named Reynolds, began making death threats, and Scientific American decided enough was enough. So now El Naschie's supporters have come here.

**M. El Naschie Is Being Defamed Like No One Before In The History Of Science By Internet Hooligans**

Sat Apr 25 06:28:01 BST 2009 by Jason

Sat Apr 25 06:28:01 BST 2009 by Jason

Hi New Scientist, if you check the logs you'll certainly find most of the previous comments come from a single IP. Note the comment about infidels, torturing the prophet, etc. That's exactly the pattern of how death threats started at Scientific American.

Best regards,

Jason

**Absolute Lies And Defamation By A Man Called Jason**

Sat Apr 25 12:29:01 BST 2009 by Mike

Sat Apr 25 12:29:01 BST 2009 by Mike

It is exactly the other way around Jason. You established a pornographic blog which involves children, homosexual practice and sado masochistic practice among other things. You call yourself a scientist. That is a very lousy joke. You are twenty seven years old man who is out of work. John Baez uses your services together with a lousy German journalist based in Hamburg. Although twenty seven and a university drop out or maybe because of that you have covered the water front. You are well known to the police. Scientific American decided that they had enough of you and your colleagues after receiving hundreds of complaints. This site was running very well until you invaded it to spread your lies and defamation. Sorry to spread the lies and defamation of your pay masters.

**M. El Naschie Is Being Defamed Like No One Before In The History Of Science By Internet Hooligans**

Sat Apr 25 13:15:13 BST 2009 by Kumar

Sat Apr 25 13:15:13 BST 2009 by Kumar

Jason is known to the police

It is Jason who has been banned from Scientific American. He is a 27 year- old unemployed thug who is known to the police for many offenses. He runs a pornographic blog with children and animals.

M. El Naschie Is Being Defamed Like No One Before In The History Of Science By Internet Hooligans

Sat Apr 25 16:05:48 BST 2009 by M. Mustafa

M. El Naschie Is Being Defamed Like No One Before In The History Of Science By Internet Hooligans

Sat Apr 25 16:05:48 BST 2009 by M. Mustafa

Jason you are a big liar and a big fool too. You made the mistake of your life which no sensible teenager would do. Thank God for that because you have exposed yourself really well. Now we know you better and the real you is now getting exposed big time in front of all readers.

You said that a lot of comments came from a single IP address. Can you tell us how you know that this is the case for sure. To get this information you must be one of two. First, you must be an inside administrator to be able to confidently make such a statement. We know for sure that you are not. Second, you must have hacked this site. I dont think that someone with your profile and small brain is capable of doing that. The last probability and the most likely one is that you are a big fat liar, totally unprofessional and a hired vigilante who is out there smearing people with no shame. You have no credibility. Do you think we readers are morons so we can believe all the lies you are spreading here. The SCIAM blog was shut down because of obscenity and lies you were spreading. So goodbye and go to hell.

**How The Vak Was Rediscovered**

Sat Apr 25 14:57:54 BST 2009 by Jonathan Sharpe

Sat Apr 25 14:57:54 BST 2009 by Jonathan Sharpe

When reminiscing about old times Lake Como comes to mind first. Some twenty years ago I was in a conference in this enchanting place. The host was Gulio Casati and there were many famous scientists present. Amongst them was Uriel Frisch who is famous for using fractals in turbulence. The Head of Department of DAMPT Cambridge together with two of his staff Barenblatt and El Naschie were also present. A scientific dispute erupted between Frisch and someone else maybe Dowker. El Naschie took the side of Dowker. He later became worried that he might be wrong. Then he said in a sharp voice to someone maybe Dowker that he would fail any student in the first semester for not knowing that Hamiltonian systems do not have attractors whether strange or not. He must have thought about this later on and found that he was wrong. Frisch did not know anything about the VAK. At the time Dowker and El Naschie did not know anything about the VAK either. El Naschie through the influence of some of his students changed his mind after working on non chaotic strange attractors. A few years later it must have dawned on him that the stationary state of quantum mechanics could be identified with the VAK as conjectured in the 60s by Rene Thom. El Naschie most probably knew Rene Thom through his work on the application of catastrophe theory in the instability of elastic structures. The leading man in the field was Thompson. I think that is how the notion of a vague strange attractor was born in high energy physics. The ingenuity of Palmer is that he rediscovered the VAK five years later without knowing anything about the VAK. Palmer had the advantage of course of being an expert on nonlinear dynamics and turbulence. Science historians may be intrigued by the fact that Werner Heisenbergs first problem was to solve turbulence. He failed. Later on he solved quantum mechanics and succeeded. The irony is that the message given by Palmers work and the work of his school says that the foundation of quantum mechanics lies in turbulence. In both cases we need fractals exactly as shown by Frisch despite his mistake. I hope you find these comments useful and good luck to some with their anger management courses.

**Jason Is Not Jason. He Is John Baez.**

Sat Apr 25 15:32:41 BST 2009 by Keyes

Sat Apr 25 15:32:41 BST 2009 by Keyes

Having failed with his n category café defamation campaign, John Baez decided to hire his buddy Jason. That is all

**Nobel Committee Appoints Jason As Its Spokesman**

Sat Apr 25 16:33:21 BST 2009 by Andre

Sat Apr 25 16:33:21 BST 2009 by Andre

Great news. Jason has told us that he spoke to all Nobel laureates in physics and chemistry and they have appointed him to be their spokesman. From now on anything that he says is the firm opinion of all Nobel Laureates of Physics and Chemistry. Great day for science.

**Jason Has Managed To Destroy This Site**

Sat Apr 25 16:55:08 BST 2009 by Sam

Sat Apr 25 16:55:08 BST 2009 by Sam

We have now a new pest. The internet king of defamation has hired Jason who is a man with great achievements in the field of pornography. Now they have spoiled our scientific discussion on the New Scientist site and managed to turn it into the same low level and nauseating standard of The n-Category café.

**If You Discuss Palmer, You Must Discuss El Naschie**

Sat Apr 25 17:06:17 BST 2009 by Antonio

Sat Apr 25 17:06:17 BST 2009 by Antonio

Palmer is the greatest scientist to tackle the problem of quantum mechanics since Werner Heisenberg. His proposal is conceptually very similar to that of Mohamed El Naschie. That is the only reason why we are mentioning El Naschie. I have nothing to say to this Jason or anyone like him.

**Palmer’s Black Hole & Gravity**

Sat Apr 25 21:33:34 BST 2009 by Fred

Sat Apr 25 21:33:34 BST 2009 by Fred

In his paper to be published in the Royal Society, Palmer introduced two points which Einstein could not have known of. These are Black Holes and Fractals. This is not entirely correct. Black Holes were known as singularity of spacetime according to general relativity while Einstein was still living. Second, Fractals were known even before Einstein. They were not called fractals but Cantor sets. In addition Karl Menger gave Einstein a fractal present. To know more about all that you should read the work of El Naschie attentively. Of course we are taking permission here from Mr Jason that we can mention the name of El Naschie without him shouting at us.

**Of Course Mohamed El Naschie’s Work Is Relevant To That Of Palmer**

Sat Apr 25 21:44:41 BST 2009 by C. Olliver

Sat Apr 25 21:44:41 BST 2009 by C. Olliver

It is ridiculous to suggest that we should first take permission from anyone to say whether a work of someone should be mentioned on this blog or not in the course of the ongoing scientific discussion. Palmers paper is called The Invariant Set Hypothesis. He says it is motivated by the result of nonlinear dynamics as well as black hole thermodynamics. The key properties which he uses are in his words sparseness and self similarity. This is tautology which is extremely important in mathematics as in philosophy. They correspond to the VAK, the empty set and the self similarity of fractals. In fact he says later on that he is dealing with fractals. Some pure mathematicians think the word fractals is a common word. Some think even it is a dirty word. Some people hate fractals simply because they do not like Mandelbrot. If you do not like Mohamed El Naschie then that is too bad. We do not care for the person one bit. You have deafened our ears with the news that he published in his journal. If it is so easy why do you not get a Journal. Having the internet gives everyone their journal. Even Jason has a journal of a sort. What we care about is the content of the paper. Every time you read a paper you referee it again and again so what is the use of all this noise which has been going on for nine years now. Now comes the surprise. The title of Mohamed El Naschies paper published in 2006 is Fractal black holes and information. It is a beautiful paper and it is saying more or less what Palmer has also been saying for a long time. Now we have two different sides of the same coin. This deepens the understanding. We should be grateful to both Palmer and El Naschie irrespective of their personality and whether we like them or not. For the same reason I have a deep seated antipathy for Mr. Jason whom I do not know as well as for everything he stands for.

**Famous Scientists Do Not Cite El Naschie Frequently But The Best Of Scientists Are Imitating Him**

Sat Apr 25 21:48:39 BST 2009 by Gisella

Sat Apr 25 21:48:39 BST 2009 by Gisella

People like Mr. Jason are surreal. They have incredible cheek. This is just a polite way of saying they are as thick skinned as hell. Okay I concede that not too many well established main stream old scientists cite the work of El Naschie. On the other hand I know for sure that heavy weight caliber of the so and so prize in physics are imitating his work and translating some of his ingeniously simple concepts into Chinese.

**True Imitation Is The Sincerest Form Of Flattery**

Sat Apr 25 22:12:23 BST 2009 by Anonymous

Sat Apr 25 22:12:23 BST 2009 by Anonymous

Not for a second would I seriously believe anybody who suggests that Palmer has copied the work of El Naschie. On the contrary. These two guys are very similar. To start with both of them are handsome with the standard of theoretical physicists. Second and I do mean it seriously great minds think alike. Finally both of them are by no mean mainstream physicists. Palmers affiliation speaks for itself and El Naschie is a structure engineer as everyone knows. Both men are interested in turbulence as well as nonlinear dynamics. That explains the similarity of their work. John Baez and Jason should throw away their wooden spoon and stop stirring. It will not work this time. I just happen to know both men. Both of them are gentlemen. Bad news for Jason whether he is Jason or Said.

**Palmer El Naschie And Thooft Are Saying The Same Thing Using Different Language**

Sun Apr 26 12:56:45 BST 2009 by Dimitri

Sun Apr 26 12:56:45 BST 2009 by Dimitri

Let me say from the outset that I am prejudiced and like Palmers work slightly more than I like El Naschies work and a great deal more than I like Nobel laureate Gerrard tHoofts work. Ooops, I did it again. Being a Nobel laureate should weigh nothing in a scientific debate and with that I really mean a scientific debate. The ingenious part of Palmers work is that he departs from conventional wisdom. He puts aside all this stuff with quantum field theory and returns to real basics. One particular sentence strikes me as so obvious that one can only wonder how we could have ever overlooked it for such a long time. Palmer says quantum mechanics is blind towards the fine structure of fractals and Cantor sets. That is what El Naschie said in slightly different words. That is also what tHooft is trying to say in the language of quantum field theory. The problem is quantum field theory is hopelessly inadequate to talk about fractal Cantor sets. You must change the framework before you can do that. If you accept changing the framework then we could say that the Russians were very successful in this respect by inventing two new theories. First the so called irrational quantum field theory and second the P Adic quantum mechanics. El Naschie introduced a few years ago his golden quantum field theory. Still I find a direct attack on the problem far more satisfying and Palmers number theory based on computer language is more appealing to me.

**Palmer Paper Is A Return To Reality And Ordinary Probability Theory**

Sun Apr 26 13:46:28 BST 2009 by K. Weber

Sun Apr 26 13:46:28 BST 2009 by K. Weber

In a thoroughly ingenious paper by Palmer on quantum theory, he states the following: The proposed theory is a realistic theory in the sense that in it a general M level quantum state is represented by a single real number between 0 and 1 rather than by an element of a Hilbert space over complex numbers. Palmer goes on to say: Surprising as it may seem, this real number contains the same probabilistic information as the element of the Hilbert space plus additional information from which measurement outcome is determined. I am totally baffled how Palmer was able to come to this conclusion despite having studied physics under the conservative influence of mainstream thinking. It may be the influence of Sir Roger Penrose who looks at physics from a far more fundamental point of view than mainstream physicists. There is a big misunderstanding regarding the role of number theory in physics. The simple fact is the following: The queen of mathematics is number theory and the queen of science including physics is mathematics. Therefore it follows that the queen of all queens is Number Theory. It is totally false to think that the Lagrangian is the basis of a physical theory. The basis of a physical theory is Number Theory. It seems that this conclusion was also made by Mohamed El Naschie under the influence of many other scientists notably Finkelstein, Roger Penrose, and Gerard tHooft. His paper: Quantum probability without a phase and a topological resolution of the two slit experiment is a testament to what I have just said. This paper is published in an Israeli Journal: The International Journal of Nonlinear Sciences and Numerical Simulation, vol. 8, issue 2, pp. 195-198, year 2007.

**Muslims Are Not Welcome In Theoretical Physics**

Mon Apr 27 12:25:06 BST 2009 by Ameer

Mon Apr 27 12:25:06 BST 2009 by Ameer

While reasonably welcomed in many branches of science, the general attitude is that Muslims are not welcome in theoretical physics. At least they are not welcome as leaders of the Einstein level nor of course at the Nobel prize level. That is Mohameds misfortune. He must change his name first. There is no way to explain the coordinated attacks against Mohamed except in a racial and religious context. There is no crime which anybody could commit to justify all this unprecedented attacks. Just think about it for a moment: Should all this be only because of publishing some papers? Could it be possible that some ink on paper produces this call for a new holocaust against Muslims?

**Heisenberg As Well As El Naschie And Palmer Started With Turbulence**

Mon Apr 27 19:15:25 BST 2009 by K. Casper

Mon Apr 27 19:15:25 BST 2009 by K. Casper

The best place to start searching for the foundation of a scientific field is not necessarily within this field. This is the lesson which we should learn from Heisenberg as well as El Naschie and Palmer. All the three started from fluid turbulence. Heisenberg remained puzzled by turbulence till the very end.

**Quantum Theory To Be Continued**

Mon Apr 27 19:34:52 BST 2009 by A. Sing

Mon Apr 27 19:34:52 BST 2009 by A. Sing

This talk by Jason about dimensions is complete baloney. He had better to stick to his trade which is porno blogs.

**Nobel Laureate Gerard Thooft Came To Deterministic Quantum Mechanics After Meeting Mohamed El Naschie**

Mon Apr 27 19:44:07 BST 2009 by M. Santa Elia

Mon Apr 27 19:44:07 BST 2009 by M. Santa Elia

Dissipative quantum mechanics is not identical but related to deterministic quantum mechanics which was recently suggested by Gerard tHooft. It is the least promising of all the three roads to a fundamental quantum theory namely that of T. Palmer and M. El Naschie. Interestingly tHooft started his research on this topic only after meeting Mohamed El Naschie some fifteen years ago. The work of Renate Loll and Jan Ambjorn is merely a revamp of older work using the modern language of fractals. The work of Palmer on the other hand is genuinely original and what is more important it is correct

Quantum Theory To Be Continued

Mon Apr 27 19:53:55 BST 2009 by R. Adelian

Quantum Theory To Be Continued

Mon Apr 27 19:53:55 BST 2009 by R. Adelian

You are all not commenting on the most important thing in the work of Palmer. It is the empty set. The empty set is a fractal and cannot be seen using quantum mechanics or the generalization to quantum field theory. In this case I am afraid we must return to the work of El Naschie on Cantorian spacetime and his vague attractor of Kolmogorov whether we like it or not.

**Simulation Using Computer Is Not Sufficient For A Nobel Prize**

Mon Apr 27 20:02:55 BST 2009 by Nigel

Mon Apr 27 20:02:55 BST 2009 by Nigel

Without golden mean random cantor sets no final quantitative analysis could settle basic problems in high energy physics. The computer simulation of Renate Loll and Jan Ambjorn will remain just computer simulations. The fine theoretical framework of Palmer will remain a wonderful framework necessary but insufficient. Only a full integration of the two groups with the work on E-Infinity could lead to a Nobel Prize kind of final theory. I did not mention Mohamed El Naschie intentionally out of fear of the uncontrolled anger of some quarters who have used every possible means to defame him.

**In Conversation With Nottales Fractal Spacetime**

Mon Apr 27 20:14:58 BST 2009 by J. Colman

Mon Apr 27 20:14:58 BST 2009 by J. Colman

Jason suffers from a phobia called El Naschie. Anyway Nottale gave up differentiality. He did not give up continuity. Thus his work is more limited. El Naschie uses totally disjointed Cantor sets. That is how he found the VAK. This is why his work is far more relevant to the work of Palmer.

**Good Direction**

Mon Apr 27 20:32:14 BST 2009 by Attar

Mon Apr 27 20:32:14 BST 2009 by Attar

Forget all prejudice. Look carefully at the work of Ord and Nottale and El Naschie.

**Invariant Set**

Mon Apr 27 21:09:13 BST 2009 by J. Nicolai

Mon Apr 27 21:09:13 BST 2009 by J. Nicolai

Strange attractors are invariant sets. What we need in quantum mechanics is a strange attractor without dissipation. This is what El Naschie found. It is called the VAK or the vague attractor of Kolmogorov.

**Heisenberg As Well As El Naschie And Palmer Started With Turbulence**

Mon Apr 27 19:15:25 BST 2009 by K. Casper

Mon Apr 27 19:15:25 BST 2009 by K. Casper

The best place to start searching for the foundation of a scientific field is not necessarily within this field. This is the lesson which we should learn from Heisenberg as well as El Naschie and Palmer. All the three started from fluid turbulence. Heisenberg remained puzzled by turbulence till the very end.

**Nobel Laureate Gerard Thooft Came To Deterministic Quantum Mechanics After Meeting Mohamed El Naschie**

Mon Apr 27 19:44:07 BST 2009 by M. Santa Elia

Mon Apr 27 19:44:07 BST 2009 by M. Santa Elia

Dissipative quantum mechanics is not identical but related to deterministic quantum mechanics which was recently suggested by Gerard tHooft. It is the least promising of all the three roads to a fundamental quantum theory namely that of T. Palmer and M. El Naschie. Interestingly tHooft started his research on this topic only after meeting Mohamed El Naschie some fifteen years ago. The work of Renate Loll and Jan Ambjorn is merely a revamp of older work using the modern language of fractals. The work of Palmer on the other hand is genuinely original and what is more important it is correct

**Quantum Theory To Be Continued**

Mon Apr 27 19:53:55 BST 2009 by R. Adelian

Mon Apr 27 19:53:55 BST 2009 by R. Adelian

You are all not commenting on the most important thing in the work of Palmer. It is the empty set. The empty set is a fractal and cannot be seen using quantum mechanics or the generalization to quantum field theory. In this case I am afraid we must return to the work of El Naschie on Cantorian spacetime and his vague attractor of Kolmogorov whether we like it or not.

**Simulation Using Computer Is Not Sufficient For A Nobel Prize**

Mon Apr 27 20:02:55 BST 2009 by Nigel

Mon Apr 27 20:02:55 BST 2009 by Nigel

Without golden mean random cantor sets no final quantitative analysis could settle basic problems in high energy physics. The computer simulation of Renate Loll and Jan Ambjorn will remain just computer simulations. The fine theoretical framework of Palmer will remain a wonderful framework necessary but insufficient. Only a full integration of the two groups with the work on E-Infinity could lead to a Nobel Prize kind of final theory. I did not mention Mohamed El Naschie intentionally out of fear of the uncontrolled anger of some quarters who have used every possible means to defame him.

**In Conversation With Nottales Fractal Spacetime**

Mon Apr 27 20:14:58 BST 2009 by J. Colman

Mon Apr 27 20:14:58 BST 2009 by J. Colman

Jason suffers from a phobia called El Naschie. Anyway Nottale gave up differentiality. He did not give up continuity. Thus his work is more limited. El Naschie uses totally disjointed Cantor sets. That is how he found the VAK. This is why his work is far more relevant to the work of Palmer.

**Invariant Set**

Mon Apr 27 21:09:13 BST 2009 by J. Nicolai

Mon Apr 27 21:09:13 BST 2009 by J. Nicolai

Strange attractors are invariant sets. What we need in quantum mechanics is a strange attractor without dissipation. This is what El Naschie found. It is called the VAK or the vague attractor of Kolmogorov.

**We Would Like To Know The Opinion Of The Mainstream On The Wonderful Work Of Palmer**

Wed Apr 29 11:51:13 BST 2009 by Keyes

Wed Apr 29 11:51:13 BST 2009 by Keyes

This is not the first important paper by Prof. Palmer. I have looked rather carefully into his publication record. T.N. Palmer was engaged in very deep research on the real meaning and foundation of quantum mechanics for some ten years at least. Palmers papers are mostly published in one of the most prestigious if not the most prestigious periodicals in the world namely the Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. This is where Newton published his work. This is also where Paul Dirac made his modus operandi for quantum mechanics using his algebra. Alas I could not find any resonance to Palmers work anywhere in the literature of the so called mainstream research in quantum mechanics and particle physics. I did not see any paper published in Physics Review praising or even referring to the work of great researchers such as T.N. Palmer or for that matter Georg Nicolis on quantum mechanics. Georg Nicolis for instance was the partner and right hand man of Nobel laureate Ilya Prigogine. He even went considerably further than Prigogine in his mathematical formulation of many aspects of quantum mechanics which Prigogine never considered for instance the two slit experiment. Now that Palmers work is out there for everybody to know about since Buchanans article in the New Scientist why do we not hear the opinion of the experts. I would like to know what the true stars of the mainstream community think of this work. There should be comments on this site by Lee Smolin and Edward Witten and Nobel laureate David Gross. No one is interested to know what Jason or anyone of the standard of Jason thinks or writes. It is a scandal that such momentous research such as that of Palmer and his colleagues should come and go uncommented upon by those who count. In the event I am compelled to say that I am not in the least astonished that brave scientists such as Nottale and El Naschie were publishing their work in nonlinear dynamic journals. It is clear that the main stream is boycotting nonlinear dynamics for political reasons to put it politely. When the palaces are inhabited by the philistines and when the Courts are filled with corrupt judges and when the King turns a blind eye to all these events then that is the point when the people storm the Bastille and the guillotine is then turned on all outdated ideas. It is really strange that we live in a time that the New Scientist weighs many times more than the Proceedings of the Royal Society. I have no quarrel with that. In fact a great man who was Editor in Chief of the Proceedings of the Royal Society once said that if you want to bury a paper publish it in the Proceedings of the Royal Society. What I am objecting against is that questionable blogs should make up our scientific minds for us and worse still that bloggers should be used by proxy to terrorize anyone who dares to challenge the scientific establishment using scientific methods.

**The Bizarre Story Of Compulsive Defamation Syndrome**

Thu Apr 30 16:57:45 BST 2009 by Sven

Thu Apr 30 16:57:45 BST 2009 by Sven

Readers of this site know exactly who I am referring to when I say compulsive defamation syndrome. It is simpler than that. It is money shortage syndrome as I will reason in a minute. Jason writes that El Naschie and Palmer and Nottale are not taken seriously by any serious scientist. The first question that pops to mind is who are you Jason. You are a distinguished scientist. Why should a distinguished scientist spend his time lazing around on the internet defaming people. Is it the compulsive defamation syndrome. We trust Google. We just do not trust you Jason not one bit. You have smeared thousands of pages on the internet defaming El Naschie but not a single argument was scientific or have anything to do with science or morals. Take your pick. Either you are paid to do this job or your are inflicted with this syndrome. Sickening.

**Relation Between Palmer's And El Naschie's Treatments**

Fri May 01 21:34:59 BST 2009 by Habeeb

Fri May 01 21:34:59 BST 2009 by Habeeb

It looks to me that Palmer is working in state space while El Naschie has made most of his arguments in space-time, even though the latter has made reference to the VAK, which is a state space fractal. It may or may not be that the two approaches to the interpretive problems of quantum mechanics are completely equivalent, even though I have a feeling that this will be the case. It may turn out at the end that the Invariant Set of Palmer in state space is a direct consequence of the fractal nature of space-time in El Naschie's approach. But it may also turn out that the Cantorian nature of this fractal space-time is a more stringent requirement than what is required for the appearance of an Invariant Set in state space as a result of the fractality of space-time. Or, it may be a necessary requirement. In all cases, working in space-time seems to produce more information with relevance to unification and high energy physics,while working in state space has more interpretive power for quantum mechanics.

It may turn out at the end that the two approaches are equivalent and complementary to each other in the same way that Schroedinger's quantum mechanics is equivalent and complementary to Heisenberg's quantum mechanics.

If this argument has any sense in it, then it seems natural that a mathematical proof of the complete, or at least restricted, equivalence of the two approaches is much needed.

I hope that one of the two great scientists, either Palmer or El Naschie, will be the Heisenberg who proved the historical equivalence.

If a restricted or conditional equivalence is what will turn up as a result of the awaited mathematical proof, then I think it will be in the sense that Palmer's argument about the geometrical framework of quantum mechanics needed for a correctly guided unification attempts will be more inclined towards El Naschie's Cantorian space-time approach. This is so as the the latter approach is already proving to be more versatile in connection with the larger unification endeavor, while it is not clear at present how to use Palmer's geometrical arguments to at least sketch a unification scheme. Palmer has just indicated the expected benefit of his geometrization of quantum mechanics but in state-space but hasn't shown us how yet. I expect that, if such a scheme is at all possible, then would be very difficult to implement.

I strongly suggest looking at this difficult part of the unfinished job.

Habeeb

**Relation Between Palmer's And El Naschie's Treatments**

Sun May 03 20:03:41 BST 2009 by Werner Hansen

Sun May 03 20:03:41 BST 2009 by Werner Hansen

Habeeb made a good point. The relation between Hilbert space and real space time was considered by Mohmaed El Nasachie. In his

E infinity theory his topological probability measure blurred the difference between the Hilbert state space and E infinity real space time. You can read this on page 847 of his paper in Chaos, Solitons and Fractals Volume 27 published in 2006. The paper title is The idealized quantum two slit gedanken experiment revisited. Criticism and reinterpretation page 843 to 849. Another note worthy paper on the same subject is entitled Hilbert fock and Cantorian spaces in the quantum two slit gedanken experiment.

Werner Hansen

**Relation Between Palmer's And El Naschie's Treatments**

Mon May 04 08:06:08 BST 2009 by E. W

Mon May 04 08:06:08 BST 2009 by E. W

Can any body tell me Why the great man El naschie in most of his papers you find equations are not numbered, even for a long review paper.

Is it because his papers enjoy self similarity and numbering them would destroy that selfsimilarity.

**The Vak Of Vacuum Fluctuation And The Comment Of Prof. Habeeb**

Mon May 04 12:46:43 BST 2009 by Amin Yayli

Mon May 04 12:46:43 BST 2009 by Amin Yayli

The comment of Prof. Habeeb is important. It is not just any point. It is the most important one in the work of Prof. Palmer as well as Prof. El Naschie. However this deep question has already been substantially answered in various publications by El Naschie who was very aware that the VAK is the state space of the dynamics of the vacuum fluctuation and is not automatically synonymous with the spacetime in which quantum fluctuation takes place. Since quantum mechanics is Hamiltonian it can have no attractors nor of course strange attractors. The VAK is however a very special form of strange attractor. The VAK exists for non dissipative Hamiltonian systems. The VAK or the vague attractor of Kolmogorov resembles a strange attractor but it is not an attractor. A similar thing was discovered by El Naschie many years before he discovered the VAK and this was the analogy between the three points and the four points chaos game and the two slit experiment. In this case the Sierpinski pattern is the VAK of the three point chaos game which emulates quantum mechanics in this experimental set up. El Naschie realizes the difference between Hilbert state space of the VAK and the Cantorian E infinity spacetime. However he made a bold connection between the two when he realized that Hilbert space in this case is far more physical and E infinity spacetime is far more mathematical than one thinks. Using his topological probability the difference between fractal state space and fractal spacetime becomes fuzzy and disappears. This is the only point which the work of Palmer seems to have missed. Having said that it should be emphasized that Palmers version of the VAK is an original physical interpretation of the topology used to reach the VAK. Habeebs insight into the problem is worthy of being a paper to be published in the Royal Society. Palmers realization that Cantor sets are the mathematical expression of what a distinguished Israeli scientist called counterfactual is a mile stone in understanding the short comings of conventional quantum mechanics. El Naschie put the same idea forward using a famous story by Oscar Wilde. I think he likened his Cantor sets with the ghost which haunts Canterville Castle. I thought the analogy was quite appealing. I attended a course on physics and E infinity some time ago which was given by El Naschie. He did not dwell on these things however.

**The Vak Of Vacuum Fluctuation And The Comment Of Prof. Habeeb**

Mon May 04 17:59:55 BST 2009 by Nils Holgersson

Mon May 04 17:59:55 BST 2009 by Nils Holgersson

In the paper dead or alive desperately seeking Schroedinger s cat which Mohamed El Naschie dedicates to the birthday of his teacher Professor Dr Dr Werner Martienssen he writes the following. We start by accepting the particle wave duality for the two slit experiment as a physical manifestation of Goedel s undecidability theorem. It seems that the work of Palmer as well as Mohamed El Naschie is fundamentally based on Goedel s theorem. It also seems that Mohamed EL Naschie was deeply involved with Goedel s theorem as early as 1991. This is shown in his paper which he dedicated to the memory of George Cantor and Kurt Goedel in the first international symposium on Goedel theorems which was held in the University of Paris between 27 and 29 May 1991. The Editor is Z Wolkowski and published by World Scientific in 1993.

In the abstract on page 95 he writes the work gives a broad outline of a way of looking at turbulence and quantum mechanics using ideas which were developed by George Cantor and Kurt Goedel. It is suggested here that micro space time may be a Cantorian structure with a natural informational horizon. We see clearly that both Palmer and EL Naschie have the right background in turbulence and Goedel s theorem to discover the Cantorian basis of paradoxes of quantum mechanics. For Palmer to get as far as El Naschie with quantitative and not only qualitative analysis he needs to understand the relation between the dimensional theory of Menger and the dimensional theory of Hausdorff. This is what Mohamed El Naschie was able to establish. John Baez was making jokes about the empty set. However John Baez is good only at making jokes and criticizing other people. He was never able to introduce any workable new idea in physics. This time the joke is on Baez. Palmer and El Naschie prove him to be a big mouth with no substance.

Nils Holgersson

**All You Need Is The Vak**

Mon May 04 20:36:44 BST 2009 by D. Hartley

Mon May 04 20:36:44 BST 2009 by D. Hartley

It may be that we do not need string theory or loop quantum gravity or in fact E infinity theory. All what is needed now is to integrate the VAK of El Naschie and Palmer into a slightly modified quantum field theory ala tHooft. The VAK already has everything in it. You can deduce general conclusions from the VAK alone. In fact you can calculate the entire elementary particle mass spectrum from the VAK. In this sense the VAK which is for all practical purposes at this energy scale equivalent to Cantorian spacetime or fractal spacetime if you want reveals its fine structure as being the elementary particle or what we call elementary particle. It may be an extension of what Mohamed El Naschie once described in the words of the Beatles all you need is E8 and E8 is all what you need. Now we have a more sweeping generalization of this statement namely all you need is the VAK and the VAK is all what you need. This is what El Naschie told me on the phone only two days ago. He may have said it with a tongue in cheek but the parody has more to it than meets the eye. It could explain the alpha bar quantization of the mass of elementary and composite quantum particles observed experimentally. It fully explains the golden mean methodology of E infinity theory. It is the KAM theorem again and again in all directions. It is mind boggling how simple things could be. Cantor said I can see it but I cannot believe it. He said that in French although he was German. Many decades later Wheeler said when we discover it all we will be puzzled how could we have overlooked it for such a long time. Remember Wheeler is the man who had the idea of Borel sets which was used first by El Naschie and then the form of numbers by Palmer. In other words we may have reached our goal regarding an explanation of what quantum mechanics means. In principle the greatest difficulties to swallow now is the simplicity of it all. At least in principle. However to understand and to calculate may be a considerable distance apart. I am convinced there is only one way to calculate these things and that is to accept the theory of Urysohn and Menger in the interpretation and extension of El Naschie. In other words the empty set has the dimension minus one while the totally empty set has the dimension minus infinity. The empty set is a Cantor set or any other similar set which we call fractals provided they are measured zero. These are the entities which physicists have a hard time swallowing. Palmer put it in a disarmingly simple way by saying that quantum mechanics is blind to Cantor sets. This is not surprising when you consider how El Naschie described that. In his informal presentation and review article he called the Hausdorff dimension of the negative dimensional sets with zero measure the spirit of a body which has long ceased to exist

All You Need Is The Vak

Tue May 05 15:20:49 BST 2009 by Habeeb

All You Need Is The Vak

Tue May 05 15:20:49 BST 2009 by Habeeb

We may be living in a great era of quantum physics. We should above all thank Dr. Buchanan and New Scientist for bringing our attention to Palmer's great work by publicizing it before publication.

The remarks of Hartley, Amin Yayli and Holgersson are of great relevance to both Palmer's and El Naschie's works.

There is still a need for a rigorous mathematical proof of the equivalence of the two approaches, if there exists such an equivalence. It may happen that this awaited proof is a simple one as Hartley is trying to indicate here. It may also appear that a detailed and complete proof is also still needed. In this connection I may mention the detailed complicated mathematics followed by Prof. Iovane in establishing the emergence of the quantum Hilbert space from the Cantorian infinite hierarchical space-time, which may become at the end part of the awaited rigorous proof I am hinting at.

This proof of equivalence, or non equivalence, whether it be short and somehow similar to the statements made by Hartley or long and requires detailed existing or non existing mathematics, is going to be a cornerstone in the integration of the two approaches which Hartley has cleverly stated in his remarks. No field theory may be needed to bring out the physics when it comes to utilizing Palmer's and El Naschie's ideas after integration.Stillmy previous statements are of relevance; Palmer's state space approach is powerful for interpretation of quantum physics while El Naschie's space-time approach, together with its Cantorian space-time number theoretic, topological and geometrical bases, for problems of unification. To use the language of Hartley, I would put it that Cantorian number theoretic arguments, which form the main structure of what El Naschie is calling the golden field theory, will represent hard things for main stream physicists to swallow as alternatives to the standard quantum field theoretic mathematical tools in use for a long time.

Integration efforts should not overlook related great theoretical achievements by Nottale in his Scale Relativity Theory and Sidharth in his many published papers and three fascinating books: The Chaotic Universe, The Universe of Fluctuations and the Thermodynamic Universe. The later work may form at the end the solid bases for a required non-reductionist physical prescription for the emergence of the fractal Cantorian space-time and the VAK or the Invariant Set.

In the benefit of advancing our great discipline, and concentrating on the objective part of the fruitful discussion that is taking place here on the respected NS website, thanks again to Dr. Buchanan's courageous and enlightening efforts, I would suggest the following:

1- Dr. Buchanan makes another serious and courageous attempt to review the work of El Naschie and his Cantorian physics school, in the same way as he did for the work of Palmer, to complete the endeavor that he started and to do justice to both works on behalf of the physics community.

2- Both Prof. Palmer (FRS) and Prof. El Naschie look at the work of each other in the same way that Schroedinger and Heisenberg looked deeply at wave mechanics and matrix mechanics to integrate them together.The physics community expects great things to come from both scientists in this direction in the form of separate or joint publications.

3- The main stream quantum physicists are more pressed now than any time before to look seriously in these attempts of Palmer, El Naschie, Nottale , Sidharth and others, witnessed to take place outside the main stream, and which seem so far to represent more successful starting points for new conceptual foundations of quantum physics and unification.

It may be fair to say that the main stream physicists are ignoring an important development which could represent the initial step of the awaited revolution, which the gifted Prof. Lee Smolin in his fascinating great book "The Trouble with Physics" expected to take place in physics every twenty five years or so as a trend. It looks to me that history is repeating itself here. It may be that we are witnessing a situation similar to what happened at the end of the nineteenth century and the beginning of the twentieth century when main stream physicists were reluctant to accept easily the birth of quantum and relativistic ideas. One should understand the historical lesson here, otherwise when history repeats itself the price would be double as it is usually said. With great minds like Smolin and Woit on the main stream side, I am personally optimistic that we will again see Eiensteins and Schroedingers who manage to live on both sides in the interest of uncovering the final truth of our reality.

Habeeb

**All You Need Is The Vak**

Tue May 05 22:05:16 BST 2009 by Tariq S

Tue May 05 22:05:16 BST 2009 by Tariq S

I concur with Dr. Habeeb to a certain extent. My observation is the following. Prof. Mohamed El Naschies knowledge of pure mathematics is stunning yet he is not a mathematician. He is clearly not interested in mathematical proofs. I read at least thirty percent of his work. This means one hundred papers or so. Most of his proofs are physicist proofs. Sometimes his proofs are nothing more than plausibility explanations. For pure mathematicians this accounts for relatively little. The astonishing point which speaks for him is that he is always right. I am reminded in this respect of the theory of the electro weak. Steve Weinberg knew the answer but he was not sure. Together with Salam and Glasshow they went anyway and published their shaky theory. They were sure it was right because they are physicists. Later on the work of the young tHooft came along and offered a mathematical proof of what everyone knows is correct. Weinberg is essentially a physicist and he presented a physicists proof. tHooft is essentially a mathematician and he gave a mathematical proof of renormalization. On the other hand the VAK is no longer just a conjecture. It is a theorem. El Naschie gave a physicists proof that for a fractal self similar geometry Hilbert space and spacetime are equivalent. I have seen this proof given in many of his papers. I cannot recall right now where I have seen it but I have seen it.

We are grateful to Dr. Habeeb whose contribution to the discussion in this blog is serious and respectful. It is a real relief from what we have unfortunately seen from time to time on such blogs. I hope the good fairy looking after this site will make sure that the witch of the east will not invade it again. Maybe the Wizard of Oz can give us some protection as well. I herewith salute everyone who sticks to the value of science and physics which has lately been threatened to go astray. We should set an example to the young people of how to use the internet in a proper and respectable way.

**All You Need Is The Vak**

Wed May 06 16:13:27 BST 2009 by Habeeb

Wed May 06 16:13:27 BST 2009 by Habeeb

Let me add few remarks that may emphasize some lessons learned from history. Our main concern here is the development of relativity and quantum concepts at the beginning of the twentieth century.

Let us imagine a situation where we didn't know that there is something in mathematics known as Riemannian geometry, or we knew it but we were reluctant to accept it as a substitute for Euclidean geometry in relativistic situations involving effects of gravity on space-time. What would have been our explanation for phenomena such as the bending of light rays near the sun, the Einstein cross, etc...? I would imagine that we may have resorted to weird concepts for explanation of these phenomena in the same sense that Dr. Mark Buchanan is emphasizing here with regard to concepts used in interpreting some of the quantum phenomena. And also in the same sense that the Michelson-Morley experiment was weirdly explained without giving up the Newtonian idea that time is absolute. Giving up Euclidean geometry for space-time in the presence of gravitational fields at the beginning of the twentieth century helped free physicists from pre-twentieth dogmas and made the interpretation of many phenomena less weird, thanks to Reimannian geometry.

On the quantum side, which was undergoing revelations at approximately the same period, it seems that physicist didn't ask themselves seriously if some kind of new mathematics, different from that based on Newton's dogmas of continuity and differentiability, may be needed for the formulation of the newly emerging quantum concepts at that time. It may be that it was not easy for physicists at that time to swallow two major changes in the mathematical structure of their theories in one go. Accepting Reimannian geometry was enough for them so to speak. For this reason, and as a natural consequence of sticking strongly to the concepts Newtonian continuity and differentiability, there was no escape of developing quantum theory in terms of Lagrangians, Hamiltonians and the corresponding field theories and differential equations. Since such main stream mathematics was not suitable for the emerging quantum concepts, mathematical formulations were pushed to the complex plane with the appearance of weird concepts such as complex probability waves, which were alien to physics and required new and strange interpretations.

I hope that nobody is going to understand me incorrectly. I am not saying that we should stop using Newton's differential and integral calculus. Also, I am not saying that the mathematical structure that emerged for quantum theory in the complex plane, or its other equivalents, is wrong. It is correct and very suitable for many calculations, but physical interpretation suffered, to use the language of El Naschie. Some indications of discontinuities and non-differentiabilities appeared, though, in some works such as those of Feynman in his path integral interpretation and also in Dirac's sea and his second quantization interpretation of negative energy states, which implicitly call for discontinuities, non-differentiabilities, and may be even for transfiniteness.

I hope that the message is clear. It is time now to accept that a major change in mathematics is required to free the quantum world from the weirdness imposed on it as a result of using improper mathematics.

If we give continuity and differentiability in quantum physics, then that is exactly what Palmer and El Naschie are calling for in different languages to some extent. However, the new fractal Cantorian mathematics, which represents the new required mathematical framework, calls for new alternatives to Lagrangians, Hamiltonians, differential equations, etc. . These alternatives, such as the number theoretic, topological and geometrical concepts, belong to the realm of fractal geometry and have to be integrated in the emerging mathematical structure of physics.

However, the relation between Palmer's and El Naschie's treatments still needs to be uncovered as I mentioned previously.

**All You Need Is The Vak**

Wed May 06 22:55:47 BST 2009 by Kelal Erdmann

Wed May 06 22:55:47 BST 2009 by Kelal Erdmann

Excellent proposition by Habeeb. Buchanan should write a new article or even a booklet. Buchanan has a facility for explaining difficult things in simple language to educated laymen. This particular job might be quite hard because the mainstream of high energy physics is a hard nut, even for Buchanan. I think someone should write to Buchanan directly because it is unreasonable to think that he would have the time to read this blog. There are many outlandish comments on this blog but the hard core is sound. Incidentally we may like to write a dictionary translating Palmer to El Naschie and El Naschie to Palmer. The two geezers are saying the same thing using different language. The languages are related like Arabic and Hebrew or Farsi and Urdu. I am not joking, I really mean it. One of the two geezers is wonderful but two of them would be terrific. They should unite.

**Lessons From History Again: We Shouldn't Forget The Stories Of Copernicus And Galileo**

Thu May 07 16:52:38 BST 2009 by Bassam

Thu May 07 16:52:38 BST 2009 by Bassam

The historical stories of Copernicus and Galileo with the catholic church are well known and shouldn't be forgotten. Here is an excerpt from Luther's Tablebook (Tischreden), or record of dinner table conversations:

"There is talk of a new astrologer who wants to prove that the earth moves and goes around instead of the sky, the sun, the moon, just as if somebody were moving in a carriage or ship might hold that he was sitting still and at rest while the earth and the trees walked and moved. But that is how things are nowadays: when a man wishes to be clever he must needs invent something special, and the way he does it must needs be the best! The fool wants to turn the whole art of astronomy upside-down. However, as Holy Scripture tells us, so did Joshua bid the sun to stand still and not the earth."

Elsewhere Luther refers to Copernicus as "a fool who went against Holy Writ"

The Trial of Galileo by the catholic church for publication of his revolutionary scientific ideas is also well known:

1633:

* Galileo is summoned by the Roman Inquisition and a document is produced alleging that Bellarmine in 1616 specifically forbade him to discuss the Copernican system in any way

Galileo faced two specific charges:

* Disobedience of Bellarmine's 1616 order.

* Misleading censors who published his book.

What was really going on in the background was that enemies of Galileo convinced Pope Urban VIII that a character in the Dialogue named Simplicio who ineptly defended the Ptolemaic system was a thinly veiled caricature of the Pope himself. This provided a pretext for making an example of Galileo, albeit on trumped up charges. Galileo was his own worst enemy in this situation, as he vastly overestimated his influence in Rome, and the degree to which his well-deserved fame would protect him.

Publicly humiliated and threatened with torture, Galileo had no choice but to admit guilt, and "abjure, curse and detest the aforesaid errors and heresies..."

Galileo was placed under house arrest at his villa in Arcetri near Florence until his death in 1642.

Despite this, in 1636 he finished "The Two New Sciences" describing his experiments in mechanics.

* Unable to get published due to his conviction, the manuscript was smuggled out of Italy and published in Protestant Leyden in 1638.

* This book helped lay the foundations of classical physics.

It may be fair to say that history is trying to repeat itself to some extent in what is appearing here about the stories of El Naschie and Palmer. It seems that some of the main stream physicists now are playing the role of the catholic church at that time, whether intentionally or unintentionally. They are doing their best to murder El Naschie and his new ideas, but in a modern way, by attacking his reputation and trying to snatch his journal Chaos, Solitons & Fractals from him, a journal he personally created from nothing as it seems. One may also observe that Palmer is trying to hide away and not associate any of his ideas with those of El Naschie in public, which is most probably against his deep inside belief as a genuine scientist of high caliber, just to avoid being victimized by some influential elements of the present day "scientific church": the main streamers, so to speak.

However, it is hoped that in the present situation, the presence of highly respected honest scientists on the main stream side is going to change any similarities with the above obnoxious scene from history. And at the end, there will be no truth but the real truth.

Bassam

**Lessons From History Again: We Shouldn't Forget The Stories Of Copernicus And Galileo**

Fri May 08 00:31:30 BST 2009 by Azo Alden Alhak

Fri May 08 00:31:30 BST 2009 by Azo Alden Alhak

Bassams words are soothing the wounds of all the friends and students of Mohamed El Naschie all over the world but wounds they are and they will remain. I swear by God that I am neither friend nor student of Mohamed El Naschie. I just opened Google to find out about this famous man of Arabia. My wife and I could not believe our eyes. There was in Google second item on the first page the following Prof. El Naschies wife and daughters are - I simply cannot print these unprintable words. If this is scientific argument then I wish to have nothing to do with science. If this is the standard to which scientists can decline even when they want to plot against their opponents then again I wish to have nothing to do with science or scientists again. True Bassam at the end the truth will always prevail. I can tell that Palmer is a great scientist courageous and singularly intelligent. If he omitted referring to Mohamed El Naschie and Laurent Nottale and the rest then it was definitely not because he is from Renate Lolls group. Palmer is an independent mind and a man of distinction in every conceivable respect. Strangely these are exactly the words used to describe Mohamed El Naschie whenever I ask someone who is in the know about him. It is now time to concentrate on science and leave time to heal the wounds. Some are self inflicted and some are not but this is the price for championing the truth exactly as in the time of Galileo. At least in that respect nothing has changed.

**The Eguchi Hanson Metric Is The Link Between El Naschie Vak And Palmer Invariant Set**

Sat May 09 22:39:22 BST 2009 by Ayman

Sat May 09 22:39:22 BST 2009 by Ayman

The VAK was defined by El Naschie following Thom as simply a random fractal Hilbert space. At this point and through discussion with Gerrard tHooft El Naschie came to consider gravitational instantons. tHooft was the leader in this respect. He pioneered the linking between spacetime of general relativity and the Hilbert space of quantum mechanics. El Naschie followed him and then realized that in E infinity fractal spacetime there is no difference between the VAK and the spacetime. He summarized his findings in several papers. See for instance his paper in the International Journal of Modern Physics Vol. 30 No. 4 yr 2004 p. 835 to 849. The papers title is Topological defects in the symplictic vacuum anomalous positron production and the gravitational instanton. In Chaos Solitons and Fractals El Naschie published two fundamental papers on the subject. The first is called Gravitational instanton in Hilbert space and the mass of high energy elementary particles in Vol. 20 yr 2004 p. 917. The second is How gravitational instanton could solve the mass problem of the standard model of high energy particle physics in Vol. 21 yr 2004 p. 249. The most important link between Hilbert space and spacetime for tHooft was a metric called Uguchi Hanson. El Naschie discovered that he does not need to move from one space to another and proved the equivalence of his procedure with that of tHooft. Not only that but he found out again following tHooft that he can have mass for his massless particle without Higgs mechanism. The results of El Naschie were numerically superior and more versatile than those of tHooft. In tHoofts analysis he determined the mass of the electron. El Naschie on the other hand determined the mass of many particles including exotic particles which could be found only when the vacuum disintegrates.

**How The Establishment Decided To Discredit Mohamed El Naschie But Confiscated His Theory**

Sun May 10 17:52:14 BST 2009 by F. Conrad

Sun May 10 17:52:14 BST 2009 by F. Conrad

My work is mainly in solid state physics. I know relatively little about high energy physics. I know even less about the philosophy and history of science. I could not speak with confidence about the case of Galileo and compare it to the case of El Naschie. Nevertheless, it is evident to me as it is evident to all that the establishment of high energy physics has decided sometime ago to teach Mohamed El Naschie a lesson he should not forget. Judging from what I have seen, I think the establishment has crossed some red lines both morally and legally. I have the feeling it will backfire at them very badly. Take for instance a recent paper by Benedetti which was published in Physics Letters of the American Society of Physics. The work claims to have found evidence for fractal spacetime in some fundamental equations. Needless to say that the author claims to have found this evidence for the first time save a paper or two by Prof. Renate Loll from Utrecht University and Prof. Jan Ambjorn from Neils Bohr Institute. No mention whatsoever of Mohamed El Naschie, Nottale, Ord nor of course Palmer. Surprisingly or maybe not so surprisingly Benedetti just finished his Ph.D. under the supervision of Prof. Renate Loll. What is more astonishing is that the paper has very little if anything to do with fractal spacetime. The paper is primarily connected to non-commutative geometry. This is a subject about which Mohamed El Naschie has written a great deal. But this is not important. What is important is the systematic confiscation of the terminology and concepts which were developed many years ago by El Naschie and his school. The establishment wants to have its cake and eat it too. On the one hand the work of El Naschie should be untouchable and carry a health warning. Anyone who dares to refer to El Naschie will share the same fate of defamation campaigns on the hand of international defamation experts. We have seen a sample of that in the n-Category café owned by John Baez. On the other hand only the establishment is entitled to use the terminology of non linear dynamics and fractal spacetime. Fractal spacetime and E-Infinity theory are fine as long as they come from the right direction and there is only one right direction and that is the direction dictated by the establishment. All of that is real. In fact it is too real to be ignored. Nevertheless it is bad logic. In fact it is appallingly bad logic let alone morality and ethics.

**How The Establishment Decided To Discredit Mohamed El Naschie But Confiscated His Theory**

Tue May 12 22:37:33 BST 2009 by D. Moffett

Tue May 12 22:37:33 BST 2009 by D. Moffett

It was a mistake to publicize the work of Palmer in the New Scientist before the publication of his fantastic paper in the proceeding of the Royal Society. Now that the establishment is aware of his paper, it is very likely that they will sabotage its publication. This wonderful paper will not appear in the proceedings of the Royal Society. There will be nowhere for people like Palmer and Nottale to go with their innovative ideas after closure of Chaos, Solitons & Fractals.

**How The Establishment Decided To Discredit Mohamed El Naschie But Confiscated His Theory**

Tue May 12 23:20:53 BST 2009 by Franz

Tue May 12 23:20:53 BST 2009 by Franz

Exactly 18 years ago I applied to one of the largest German Funding Agency to conduct research on fractal spacetime. After submitting my proposal it was not long before I received a prompt answer. There is no money for fractal spacetime. Fractal spacetime is nonsense. 18 years later, we have every two months somebody claiming to have found fractal spacetime. All these people are from the mainstream. Is that how scientific honesty is nowadays defined? I must admit that Palmer is an exception. It will not take long before they ditch him too. Is this the new world of global freedom which Bush the father promised us?

**How The Establishment Decided To Discredit Mohamed El Naschie But Confiscated His Theory**

Tue May 12 23:35:20 BST 2009 by Spitz

Tue May 12 23:35:20 BST 2009 by Spitz

As long as there are prizes and research money there will always be dishonesty. The way Nottale, Ord and El Naschie have been treated by the establishment is scandalous.

**How The Establishment Decided To Discredit Mohamed El Naschie But Confiscated His Theory**

Wed May 13 22:52:19 BST 2009 by A. French

Wed May 13 22:52:19 BST 2009 by A. French

The New Scientist has reaffirmed its position not only as a popular science magazine but now also as a leading world class weekly popular science publication. Nature for instance has not published a single contribution on fractal spacetime and fractal gravity. The article by Buchanan is by no means a conservative vision of the future of theoretical physics. It was a bold move by the New Scientist to decide to publish this article and it is very unlikely that it will please the main stream. Never the less it was the right thing to do. Science is all about the truth. To suppress the truth is equivalent to a betrayal of the truth. What I also find wonderful is the way the New Scientist has guarded the discussion on this blog. Some internet vandals complained in the blogs sphere that whenever they put their worthless comments they are immediately removed. The New Scientist does not need anyone to save it from itself as John Baez claimed in his notorious campaign against the New Scientist not very long ago. I would like to end by congratulating the trio Palmer Buchanan and the New Scientist on their achievement.

**Palmer And Elnaschie As Mathematical Experimentalists**

Sun May 24 21:21:48 BST 2009 by Fredkin

Sun May 24 21:21:48 BST 2009 by Fredkin

Experimental mathematics is not only related to the work of Enrico Ferme and his model. It is a much larger field. To have an idea about this field, you should consult a beautiful book entitled: Mathematics by Experiment. The authors are J. Borwein and D. Bailey, published by A.K. Peters Press (2008).

**New Buchanan Article On Special Relativity**

Fri Jun 05 16:56:01 BST 2009 by Relativistic anonymous

Fri Jun 05 16:56:01 BST 2009 by Relativistic anonymous

It is nice to see that the New Scientist guards their blog against internet vandals. I can see that many comments have been deleted and rightly so because they do not conform to scientific standards. I wish everybody else would take your example. The article of Buchanan is very informative. He wrote an article the other day about special relativity. He outlined the superfluous role of life. This was an idea which Mitchell Feigenbaum explained to me personally some twenty years ago in a meeting on Lake Como in beautiful Italy. There is more to this idea than meets the eye. I would have like to write a comment or two on the blog for this article but I could not find it which is how I landed on this one. Could anyone give me the link for the discussion for this new article. Thank you.

**Healing The Symmetry Break**

Sat Jun 06 12:57:54 BST 2009 by WDS

Sat Jun 06 12:57:54 BST 2009 by WDS

Getting closer. Convergence. It's almost feels like ... healing the symmetry break.

This is an excellent example of the amazing unfolding of interdisciplinary applications of new maths generally, chaos in particular. Kudos!

The Grail will of it all will be to somehow formalize useful approaches to information as energy.

Some fundamental pieces of the puzzle, maybe part of the Plank constant, maybe the Higgs field itself, will necessarily be constituted of ... pure information

**How The Establishment Decided To Discredit Mohamed El Naschie But Confiscated His Theory**

Mon Jun 15 22:41:49 BST 2009 by Prasad

Mon Jun 15 22:41:49 BST 2009 by Prasad

Am I seeing things? For God's sake, Madoff stole 50 Billion dollars from investors and het he was not subjected to anything like what El Naschie has been subjected to. The man just published papers on quantum gravity. That is all.

**Possible Solution**

Tue Jun 23 11:41:19 BST 2009 by Merrill Haug

Tue Jun 23 11:41:19 BST 2009 by Merrill Haug

I came across a fractal module in 1973 that I think might be the answer to this article and will be anouncing it on Sept. 9th. My blog is at is at blogspot.com under westecco. Look for it. The answer is in particle physics it's self.

**The History Of Fractal Spacetime And An Up To Date Account**

Wed Jul 01 14:36:30 BST 2009 by Steven

Wed Jul 01 14:36:30 BST 2009 by Steven

Palmers work is timely and to the point. If it had come earlier it would have been too early. A little bit later and it would be too late. This calls for a historical investigation and a reappraisal of the concepts of fractal spacetime and Cantor sets in high energy physics and astrophysics. This delicate work which is also time consuming was done admirably by a Slovenian scientist Prof. L. Marek-Crnjac at the University of Loblyana Dept of Math. The paper appeared in the latest hard copy of Chaos Solitons and Fractals 2009. It may be still on Elseviers Science Direct. It is good reading in conjunction with Palmers work to put it in an historical context

**Palmer's Latest Improved Version Of His Paper**

Tue Jul 28 13:58:42 BST 2009 by G. Mathias

Tue Jul 28 13:58:42 BST 2009 by G. Mathias

There is a new article on the archives by Palmer and is titled The Invariant Set Postulate:A New Geometric Framework for the Foundations of Quantum Theory and the Role Played by Gravity. It is a vastly improved version of his first paper. It is nice to see that he took many of the suggestions and criticism expressed on this site into account. The result is a much better paper. I have noticed that he acknowledged the work of Ord, Nottale and El Naschie. This shows a high quality of the man. He has no problem to say sorry I have overlooked something. That is the first sign of a true scientist. Still he did not make the link to the VAK which in my view is essential. Discriminating between the VAK and spacetime is also a common misconception stemming from the lack of appreciating the meaning of transfiniteness and infinite dimensional topology. There are few papers which I have just become aware of addressing this important aspect of the work of Palmer and the work of Rene Thom and El Naschie. I give here with no particular order in mind the most important paper in my own view which I admit is biased towards nonlinear dynamics and fluid turbulence: (1) Strange non-dissipative and non-chaotic attractors and Palmer's deterministic quantum mechanics by G. Iovane (2) From Menger-Urysohn to Hausdorff dimensions in high energy physics by G. Iovane (3) The mathematical theory of finite and infinite dimensional topological spaces and its relevance to quantum gravity by L. Marek-Crnjac(4) On the Menger-Urhsohn theory of Cantorian manifolds and transfinite dimensions in physics by Guo-Cheng Qu and Ji-Huan He (5) Mohamed El Naschie and the geometrical interpretation of quantum physics by W. Martienssen. All are published in Chaos, Solitons & Fractals and are available online at http://www.sciencedirect.com

**On The Right Orbit**

Tue Jan 05 06:42:30 GMT 2010 by Herr Heppler

Tue Jan 05 06:42:30 GMT 2010 by Herr Heppler

http://derschwarzwald.com

Palmer seem on a good path, if only he could find the center of the fractal. ha

محمد النشائي All El Naschie All The Time محمد النشائي

Majorly updated April 24

ReplyDeleteAgain April 26

ReplyDeleteAnd May 16

ReplyDeleteHuge major update December 16, 2009.

ReplyDeleteGreat job, Jason!

ReplyDeleteshrink

:) THANK you! I just noticed there are still 3 or 4 slightly out of chronological order. I will fix those soon.

ReplyDeleteThat's a very nice read. It is really good to know and to have all the late's El Naschie lifework in one place. This is why I recommend the El Naschie Watchblog to all my friends and people interested in the publications of El Naschie and/or his followers. It should be taught in universities to tempted students as a lesson how fraud may go wron - even if you thought for decades you would get through with it.

ReplyDelete