Friday, June 19, 2009

FQXi El Naschie discussion archive part one

(Part two.)

This is huge!

I've color coded green the parts that interested me enough to slow down from a skim to a careful read. There are a few notes from me in red.

FQXi FORUM
June 19, 2009

CATEGORY: Article Discussions
TOPIC: El Naschie Discussion

David wrote on Jan. 16, 2008 @ 21:33 GMT
Garrett, are you familiar with the work of MS El Naschie? It appears that your TOF and his work (which for the most part appeared in the Elsevier journal Chaos,Solitons & Fractals) have a lot in common? I would appreciate hearing your opinion.

A. Pisko wrote on Mar. 26, 2008 @ 18:28 GMT
Dear Lisi, please do not make the same mistake of the members of the string community by ignoring competing ideas. Elnaschie has been working in the same direction as for yourself for almost two decades. Before him there were many others such as Ord, L. Nottale, M. Green and J. Schwarz. Could we have your views on this for the benefit of the scientifc community at large.

N. Eisfeld wrote on Mar. 26, 2008 @ 18:32 GMT
I have been following the work of M. S. El Naschie for decades. This man has never bad-mouthed, ignored or downplayed anyone or any contribution. He also acknowledged every single person who contributed to his work unless he genuinely did not know and then he will immediately apologize of the unintended omission. I accept nothing less from Garrett Lisi and look forward to reading his explanation. With genuine good luck and best for both Garrett and Mohamed.

N. Eisfeld wrote on Mar. 26, 2008 @ 18:53 GMT
I have been following the work of Mohamed El Naschie for decades. This man has never bad mouthed, ignored or downplayed any one or any contribution. He also acknowlesges every single person who contributed to his work unless he genuinely did not know and then he will immediately apologize for the unintended omission. I accept nothing less from Garrett Lisi and look forward to read his explanation. With genuine good luck wishes for both Garrett and Mohamed

C. Kovadic wrote on Apr. 12, 2008 @ 11:16 GMT
The following question is directed to Dr. Garrett Lisi: Your theory is that of unification and not only grand unification but quantum gravity unification of all fundamental forces. In such a case the unification coupling constant is one of, if not the most important result. It is the illusive point where all the four fundamental forces meet. What is the value of this coupling? El Naschie claims that he found the exact value of this coupling to be 1 divided by 26 assuming super symmetry. So what is the value coming out of your own calculations?

R. Marek wrote on Apr. 27, 2008 @ 11:25 GMT
Dear Garrett

I am sure you are inundated by too many irrelevant comments and confused remarks all apart of unfounded and poisonous so-called criticism on a site ironically called “The Reference frame”. By contrast I hope I could bring to you some constructive suggestions which may be of help. It seems to me it is important to embed E8 in some kind of spacetime and create a substitute to...

Dear Garrett

I am sure you are inundated by too many irrelevant comments and confused remarks all apart of unfounded and poisonous so-called criticism on a site ironically called “The Reference frame”. By contrast I hope I could bring to you some constructive suggestions which may be of help. It seems to me it is important to embed E8 in some kind of spacetime and create a substitute to ordinary classical dynamics. This point has been made by Mohamed Elnaschie in frequent lectures which I have attended and also various publications. Elnaschie started following the usual counting of the degrees of freedom of spinors in order to fix the gauge. In his case this is merely fixing the scaling. Starting by 10 dimensions, we have 32 + 32 = 64 complex component equal to 128 degrees of freedom for a Dirac spinor. One goes on halving this number to 64 majorana, 32 majorana-Weyl, 16 light cones and 8 on-shells. Adding all together we find exactly your 248 dimensions of E8. Subsequently Elnaschie proceeded to embed E8 in 4D spacetime and found 252. Remembering that his average scaling exponent is 2 we see that doubling this number leads to 504. This is the dimension of the simple linear Lie group SL (2, 8) = 8(64-1) = (8)(63) = 504 and corresponds to a standard model with 126 particles or when spin up and spin down are not counted as two different particles, we have 126 divided by 2 equal 63 particles. This result as I will reason is not accurate. In fact it is wrong as Elnaschie pointed out because you need at least 8 dimensions to embed E8 and not 4. Nevertheless 63 and 126 are consistent with Heterotic string theory. In this theory the number of first level massless states is 8064. Thus dividing by the corresponding spinor degrees of freedom namely 32 + 32 = 64, one finds 126 which are 63 multiplied by 2. By contrast if we give E8 the minimum embedding one would find 248 + 8 = 356 which leads to 64 particles. When not embedding E8 at all, one finds 248 divided by 4 to be 62 particles or (62)(2) = 124 particles counting up and down as different particles. The main point which Elnaschie is demonstrating is that embedding E8 in the 26 bosonic spacetime dimensions of string theory leads to 248 + 26 = 274. This is exactly twice the value of the inverse fine structure constant of electromagnetism (2)(137) = 274. The doubling corresponding to E8E8 which have (2)(248) = 496 must be (2)(274) = 548 which is Elnaschie well-known total dimensions of the exceptional Lie symmetry group hierarchy involving the sum of the dimension of E1 to E8 as shown in various of his published work. The total number of particles in this case is 137 or 68.5 if spin up and spin down are not counted as two different particles. Thus there are still 137 – 120 = 17 elementary particles or equivalently 8.5 elementary particles to be discovered in addition to the already experimentally discovered 60 or (60)(2) = 120.

Much of what I have written here and more is on Elsevier science direct in several papers by Elnaschie. I recommend: “String theory, exceptional Lie group hierarchy and the structural constant of the universe. Chaos, Solitons & Fractals,” 35(2008) 7-12 and “Light cone quantization, heterotic strings and E-Infinity derivation of the number of Higgs bosons”, Chaos, Solitons and Fractals, 23(2005) pp. 1931-1933.

Summing up, I think embedding E8 in D = 26 would solve a great deal of problems for the Garrett Lisi model. However and in all events, I would like to congratulate Lisi on his achievement.

R. Marek

Dietmar Kohlhass wrote on Apr. 27, 2008 @ 11:27 GMT
Garrett

Your theory as I understand it has a sort of fields democracy. You can derive any field from E8 by letting it, as you like to say, “dance” on our 4 D spacetime. Well this sounds pretty similar to Elnaschie. He uses the golden mean transformation, in fact simple scaling to deform E8 into a Penrose-like fractal tiling. This Penrose universe is in fact an example of a non commutative space as explained in detail in the classical books of A. Connes. This space is homomorphic to the compactified Klein modular curve and possesses 336 + 3 = 339 hierarchical degrees of freedom. Using the 496 of E8E8 and the 20 of Einstein’s gravity tensor, Elnaschie found the electromagnetic inverse constant to be 496 – (339 + 20)= 137.

I think these results and the connections to non-commutative geometry may be quite important to your work. The particular paper in question is “On Penrose’s view of transfinite sets and computability and the fractal character of E-infinity spacetime” published in Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, 25(2005) pp. 531 – 533.

With my best wishes,

Dietmar Kohlhass

Anonymous wrote on May. 2, 2008 @ 13:46 GMT
Garrett – it seems you have set a trend toward maximal simplicity. I read about a new theory in the Telegraph using what is called Adellic function for prime numbers. The P-Adic theory was given for P=2 in one quarter of a line:

Or in more intelligible terminology, looking at 137 from a P=2 reversed magnifying glass it is exactly equal to 1. The physical interpretation of this mathematical scaling of a number field is the tantalizing bit. We know 137 is the inverse electromagnetic constant which is the weakest coupling. But 1 is the largest coupling possible and is believed to be that of the Planck mass to the Planck spacetime or Planck Aether. Second,137 is the exact number of elementary particles in the standard model while there is only one type of particles in the Planck Aether. This is remarkable confirmation of the Planck Aether theory which was developed by one of Heisenberg’s students who is a retired Professor at the University of Nevada in the USA.

The Telegraph is referring to a paper published by El Naschie in Chaos, Solitons & Fractals. It would be great to know your views on the ramification of this remarkable unification which must be deeply related to the theory of P-Adic quantum mechanics.

J. Schiffer

Jonathan Schiffer wrote on May. 3, 2008 @ 05:56 GMT
Garrett – it seems you have set a trend toward maximal simplicity. I read about a new theory in the Telegraph using what is called Adellic function for prime numbers. The P-Adic theory was given for P=2 in one quarter of a line:

Or in more intelligible terminology, looking at 137 from a P=2 reversed magnifying glass it is exactly equal to 1. The physical interpretation of this mathematical scaling of a number field is the tantalizing bit. We know 137 is the inverse electromagnetic constant which is the weakest coupling. But 1 is the largest coupling possible and is believed to be that of the Planck mass to the Planck spacetime or Planck Aether. Second,137 is the exact number of elementary particles in the standard model while there is only one type of particles in the Planck Aether. This is remarkable confirmation of the Planck Aether theory which was developed by one of Heisenberg’s students who is a retired Professor at the University of Nevada in the USA.

The Telegraph is referring to a paper published by El Naschie in Chaos, Solitons & Fractals. It would be great to know your views on the ramification of this remarkable unification which must be deeply related to the theory of P-Adic quantum mechanics.

J. Schiffer

Robert Fisher wrote on May. 3, 2008 @ 08:58 GMT
Hi Garrett,

Fashion as much as dogmas reign in science as in any other aspects of human endeavors. It should not come as a surprise that the cheapest shot in the trade is asking where is the Lagrangian? A little bit of history of science may help although it will never cure.

The action principle was introduced in science as a mere alternative albeit more formal way of arriving at Newton’s equation of motion. It is connected to the name of Maupertius although he dealt only with the elementary problem of minimizing a work function. The more profound problem of minimizing a function was solved by Euler. It then became fashionable to formulate the laws of mechanics without drawing a single picture or diagram in contrast to Newton. At the end we had two schools of thinking, that of the imaginative H. Poincare and that of the sterile Bourbacki group. An abstract method such as the action and variational principle is without doubt of great help in a field such as particle physics where pictures and diagrams are not as helpful as in classical mechanics. But this and quantum field theory was fiercely resisted in the USA as in the Soviet Union. However a detente took place, then a change of guards in the USA as in Russia brought the opposite situation and without a Lagrangian you are not supposed to make a single move. Habit and mental inertia do the rest. Lisi’s work is free of such artificial constraints. He seems to work in three steps just like in the work of Elnaschie. First a clear model, then an enlightened counting, then algebraic manipulation to find what he expects to find. Other physicists like Lisa Randal marvel at the enormously complex mathematic and algebraic computation she is capable of doing as if this is what it is all about. Others like Lisi seek maximum simplicity to find an answer to a physical question and not to demonstrate a supernatural talent for computation as for instance in the case of the proof of the four color problem. Lisi and his followers are theoretical physicists in the mould of Poincare and Einstein. The majority nowadays are mathematical physicists of the Bourbacki type. Lisi has to live with that until the tide of fashion changes.

Robert Fisher

Robert Fisher wrote on May. 5, 2008 @ 15:46 GMT
The comment written by anonymous on May 4 2008 is worth considering. He is both right and wrong. First he is somewhat wrong because topological singularity theory is used in string theory. However these are structurally stable singularities called by R. Thom catastrophe theory. You can read about that in the McGraw Book published in 1990 in London and authored by Elnaschie, a Professor of Engineering Mechanics at Sibley School of Aeronautics and Astronautics in Cornell, U.S.A. A brief account maybe found in a book by M. Kaku published by Springer. Also physically whenever you have a mini black hole you have a singularity and string theory uses length scale equal to the radius of a Planck mass which is a mini black hole.

The second point is more involved. Quantum chaos theory is not a classical chaos theory because the quantum suppresses ordinary chaos. But the anonymous comment is quite potent! One could describe the work of Nobel Laureate G. ‘tHooft, as well as the same Engineering Professor mentioned above Elnaschie, as searching for the common roots of classical mechanics and quantum mechanics and finding that in classical chaos. However the exact relation of ‘’tHooft and Elnaschie’s work to the work of G. Casati and Boris Cherecov and the quantum chaos community in general is far of being clear at the moment as far as I am aware. But in general you are right. Neither string theory nor loop quantum gravity have place for the fuzziness of chaos, classical or quantum and it would be a great achievement if Garrett theory could incorporate chaotic symmetries in the sense of field and Glotobiski as discussed in many popular writings by the very talented Ian Stewart.

Dr. Robert Fisher

Marcel Kavorkian wrote on May. 11, 2008 @ 20:59 GMT
Disillusioned by conventional quantum mechanics, Richard Feynman invented path integral. I think we are facing a similar situation today with Lisi’s E8 proposal. In fact it is possible to interpret Elnaschie’s method as moving from ordinary path integral to summing over all exceptional Lie symmetry groups. This intriguing point is however this: there are finite numbers of exceptional Lie and Stein manifolds. This way the problem such as Gribor copies is illuminated in a totally unexpected way.

M. Kavorkian

Dr. L. Marek-Crnjac wrote on May. 13, 2008 @ 20:47 GMT
On its own as a single Lie symmetric group E8 cannot do the entire job of unification. On the other hand by summing over all exceptional Lie groups it can be done. This was the program of Prof. Mohamed El Naschie with whom I have had the honour of collaborating on this subject for some time.

L. Cran wrote on May. 14, 2008 @ 09:33 GMT
To Wong and Kavorkian. You have both spelled the name of the great Russian Theoretical Physicist wrong. He is Professor V. Gribov. He is the first to point out that the usual procedure for fixing the gauge freedom in non-Abelian gauge theories is ambiguous. This puts classical theories of quarks confinement in doubt. This has to do with super conductivity of magnetic monopoles as well as gauge invariance. That is why Elnaschie used summing over exceptional Lie and stein spaces and used a different argument for deriving confinement from phase transition of spacetime to a Planck Aether with a single Planck mass as mini black hole.

L. Cran

B. Kerek wrote on May. 16, 2008 @ 08:21 GMT
At long last Scientific American took notice of E8. On page 16 of the April 2008 issue, Graham P. Collins gives a somewhat mixed up review of the theory and comments on Lisi’s work. Of course he does not mention the work of Green, Schwarz, He, Crnjac, Elnaschie or anyone else, only rejoice that Lisi’s paper was wiped out from the internet archive. The present Stalinistic regime of theoretical physics ayotallahs do not permit that a wonderful theory such as that of Lisi’s becomes respectable. The beautiful small world complexity neural network is not allowed to exist because of the archbishops of superstrings and quantum field theory. People like Lee Smolin and ‘tHooft are rare species nowadays and the Telegraph proved to be more scientifically minded than Scientific American.

B. Kerek

Bob Meyers wrote on May. 24, 2008 @ 15:55 GMT
Pleased to read Ray Munroe’s recent comment dated May 22, 2008. This is the sort of comments acceptable on a respectable site. Yes without digging deeper there is no such thing as E12 because E8 is the largest exceptional Lie symmetry group. Any larger group will have an infinite dimensional Lie algebra. However, Prof. H. Nicolai from Max Planck Einstein Institute in Berlin-Germany worked with E10 and E11. These are special forms of Exceptional Lie group extended beyond the initial idea. It all started by H. Gorgi, M. Elnaschie, J. Schwarz and many others who noticed that by systematically modifying the Dynkin diagram one will find that SO(10) may be called E5 while SU(5) is E4.

Subsequently, M. S. Elnaschie at Frankfurt-Germany proposed to work with a hierarchy of Exceptional Lie Symmetry group leading to a total symmetry group dimension equal to 548. By including all two and three stein spaces, he finds not only 4 alpha bar =548 where alpha bar = 137 but also 5 alpha bar + 1 = 686 as dimensions. From all of that we can easily conclude that Ray Munroe may be well justified in inventing E12. He said it is 684 dimensional which means only 2 less than what Enaschie has calculated and only 1 less than (5)(137) = 685. It maybe worthwhile that Munroe looks at Elnaschie’s work and vice versa and that both should be thankful to the work of Lisi and this site. Most of Elnaschie’s work is published in Nonlinear Dynamics Journals. Here are few samples:

(1) One and two stein space hierarchies in High energy physics, Chaos, Solitons & Fractals. 36(2008) pp. 1189-1190.

(2) The internal dynamics of the exceptional Lie symmetry groups hierarchy and the coupling constants of unification. Chaos, Solitons & Fractals (2008) doi:10.1016/j. Chaos. 2008.04.028.

(3) Montonen-Olive duality and the mass spectrum of elementary particles via E-Infinity. Int. Journal of Nonlinear Science and Numerical Simulation. 9(3), 307-308.

Bob Meyers

Anonymous wrote on May. 24, 2008 @ 15:59 GMT
Two brand new papers came to my attention and they may be more than relevant to Garrett Lisi’s research. The papers are by a Saudi scientist at King Abdullah Institute for Nano and Advanced Technologies, KSU, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Both papers are on Elsevier science direct.

(a) E-eight exceptional Lie groups, Fibonacci lattices and the standard model.

(b) Towards a quantum field theory without Gribov copies and similar problems.

The two papers are published by Elsevier and the name of the Journal is Chaos, Solitons & Fractals and author’s name is M. S. Elnaschie.

A. Kasim

Dr. Ray Munroe wrote on May. 26, 2008 @ 18:02 GMT
Dear Bob Meyers,

Thank you for the observation that 5 x 137 = 685 is only one element larger than my 684-plet of “E12”. I have been aware of Sir Arthur S. Eddington’s old work regarding the Fine Structure Constant for many years, but I have not followed Prof. Mohamed S. Elnaschie’s work. Personally, I am a proponent of Five Fundamental Forces, Five Generations of Fundamental Fermions (there’s that number FIVE again), and I’m a big fan of Dirac’s Large Numbers Hypothesis regarding the number ~10^40. But I’ve always been suspicious of theories built around the number 137, because the Fine Structure “Constant” of QED varies with the renormalization mass scale (for instance, the Weak-scale alpha bar is ~128), and how does that affect the theory?

Nonetheless, your observations have raised my interest. I need to visit Florida State University’s Dirac Science Library, and read Elnaschie’s ideas.

Sincerely,

Ray Munroe

p.s. – A correction to my earlier posting: The G2 of color bosons contains basis: g3, g8; roots: 6 gluons & 6 squarks/ anti-squarks; and singlet: selectron/ anti-selectron. The adjunct G2 of color fermions contains basis: electron/ positron; roots: 6 gluinos & 6 quarks; and singlet: gluino-3/ gluino-8. I think it is sloppy to mix bosons and fermions in the same representation group, when we know that there is an adjunct Supersymmetric representation.

Bob Meyers wrote on May. 27, 2008 @ 09:14 GMT
Dear Ray,

Thank you for responding to my comments. I can give you more definite things of which I have just become aware. In hyperbolic geometry volume is an invariant. There is a hyperbolic manifold called M4 studied by some Swiss mathematician in Zurich and used by Mohamed El Naschie in high energy physics. Believe it or not, the so-called two volume of M4 is exactly your dimension 684....

Dear Ray,

Thank you for responding to my comments. I can give you more definite things of which I have just become aware. In hyperbolic geometry volume is an invariant. There is a hyperbolic manifold called M4 studied by some Swiss mathematician in Zurich and used by Mohamed El Naschie in high energy physics. Believe it or not, the so-called two volume of M4 is exactly your dimension 684. El Naschie published that in several journals of nonlinear dynamics in various versions of varying sophistication. It is incredible because M4 is based on a Coexter polytope representing a 120 cell gossett for E8. You need two of them to construct E8. Since dimension is invariant just as volume, I am now convinced your E12 is the mother of all exceptional Lie groups. In a sense you have reached summing over all existing stein and exceptional groups by simply calculating the hyperbolic volume. On reflection this is not astonishing at all. Volume is a higher dimensional area and you get an area by integration. Integration is summation. So it is merely tautology. We are just using different languages. But the message is the same.

You don’t need to go to Florida. One of the closest students of Prof. El Naschie is Nasr Ahmed working in Newcastle. He works with a prominent student of Steven Hawking, Prof. Ian Moss. Nasr will send you all of El Naschie’s work free of charge because I think he has it. And if not, he can put you in contact with Prof. El Naschie. I know El Naschie is as elusive as an electron and I wonder sometime if he is real or a collection of scientists with a pseudo name like Bourbake in France because he works in politics, philosophy, literature, engineering and science.

Regarding Eddington’s work and El Naschie’s interpretation, this is nothing to be suspicious of at all. It is straightforward mathematics. Let me give you the simplest form of it. You know that E8E8 which is 469 takes care of all interactions. Now particle physics consumes 336 + 3 of them. Gravity has 20. Subtracting both all what is left is 137 for electromagnetism. But 137 itself is variable in El Naschie’s theory. It is 137 at our low energy scale. It is 128 or 127 at various electroweak scales. It is 42 at grand unification and it is 26 at complete quantum gravity unification. Finally it is exactly equal to 1 at the Planck Aether scale. Being the coupling of the Planck masses to the Planck Aether. So it is of course a variable. It is a variable in disguise and it varies from 137 to 1. El Naschie published a remarkable equation based on P-Adic analysis. The equation says the P-Adic norm for P = 2 of 137 is exactly 1. There is much more to say for instance in El Naschie’s theory alpha bar is not 137 only. It is 137.082039325. This is exactly equal to 20 multiplied by the inverse of the golden mean to the power of 4. So El Naschie doesn’t build his theory from 137 but from the golden mean which is the basic element of the generalization of the Platonic bodies including the E8 gossett. Without the golden mean, there are no E8 gossetts and no octonions and there is no Lisi’s theory. In fact most of the Platonic bodies will also disappear.

Thank you very much for giving me the opportunity to have this exchange of thoughts and my sincere wishes for the success of your forthcoming book. I really hope you, Lisi and El Naschie and all the people working with you succeed in bringing us one step further rather than staying in this stalemate from which theoretical physics is suffering because of the internal civil war between the different factions of the so-called mainstream. I recall a word I read in an article by El Naschie about Thomas Mann’s book Death in Venice, Prof. Achenbach’s friend said: Do you know what lies at the bottom of the mainstream……..Mediocrity!

Bob Meyers

A. Kasim wrote on May. 27, 2008 @ 10:08 GMT
To Bob Meyers

I was really flabbergasted to see a paper published four years ago using a manifold with exactly (2)(342) = 684 something. This is exactly the order of Ray Munroe’s E12 not one centime less.

To Ray Munroe:

I said 684 something because this was not called dimension but twice the four-dimensional volume invariant of a manifold called M4. This manifold is based on a 120-cell coexter polytope and therefore is related to the E8 Gosset. Elnaschie noted that (26 +k)(26 +k) = 685. This volume invariance may be regarded as a substitute to dimension. The paper titled: Super-symmetry, transfinite neural networks, hyperbolic manifold, quantum gravity and the Higgs, is a clear validation of Munroe’s E12 which has F theory spacetime dimension as 12. The paper is published in Chaos, Solitons and Fractals No 22 (2004) pp. 999-1006. The author is M. S. Elnaschie from Cobham, Surrey, UK. It is amazing that the hyperbolic volume of M4 is equal to E12 dimensions. However, it is unbelievable that it is almost equal to the 686 of the sum of all exceptional Lie symmetry groups and stein spaces. These are entirely different theories and formulations leading to exactly same results. It is beautiful and must be true.

A. Kasim

Sonja Kaliski wrote on May. 27, 2008 @ 16:31 GMT
Dear Garrett:

To whom it may be of interest, I would like to say that the E12 proposal of Ray Munroe has taken me by surprise for more than one reason. I am a follower of the work of Professor Ruth Kellerhals who is a student of the famous Swiss mathematician Prof. Hof, University of Basel, Switzerland. Her wonderful review article is published in Mathematical Intelligencer. My then Ph.D. co-advisor, Prof. Mohamed El Naschie made several references to her paper. She established the hyperbolic 4-manifold M4 found by Dr. M. Davies based on 120-cell coxeter polytope that has a hyperbolic volume 104 multiplied by pi square divided by 3 which is 342.146286. Since El Naschie needs two of them to compare to E8E8, one must multiply by two and find 684.232572. He subsequently reasoned that the exact expression is simply alpha bar divided by 2 and multiplied by 10. In other words it is the 137 alpha bar multiplied by 5. Thus Ray Munroe has found an exceptional symmetry group hyperbolic manifold because (137)(5) = 685. El Naschie calls the exact expression, the transfinitely exact expression:

(137.082039325)(5) = 685.410197

If we would have taken only the integer part from the outset we would have found Ray’s value which is:

(2)(342) = 684

The implication is breathtaking because El Naschie obtained the same results using path integral and Yang-Mills theory combined in his paper titled “Topics in the mathematical physics of E-Infinity” which unfortunately is published in an Elsevier Journal – Chaos, Solitons & Fractals - rather than freely on the world-wide-web (www). Prof. El Naschie is an enormously kind person who did himself a bad service by boycotting internet publications and relying mainly on periodicals which with the exception of Nature, Science and Physics Review, no one reads any more. However a particular paper on this 685 hyperbolic manifold published in the International Journal of Nonlinear Science and Numerical Simulation, an Israeli Journal, was chosen by Thomson - ESI Essential Science Indicator as a most cited hot paper. This is found on the internet at: www.esi-topics.com/nhp/2006/September-06-MohamedElNaschie.ht
ml. The title of the paper is: “On a Fuzzy Kahler-like manifold which is consistent with the two slit experiment” and in the same journal, vol. 6, issue 2 pp. 95-98 (2005). Editor in chief Prof. Ji-Huan He, Shanghai, People’s Republic of China.

I must end by congratulating Ray Munroe on his E12 discovery. However this would have not happened or at least would not have been appreciated without G. Lisi, Lee Smolin and the courageous Telegraph science writer.

Sonja Kaliski

Dr. Ray Munroe wrote on May. 28, 2008 @ 15:24 GMT
Bob – I live in Tallahassee, Florida. The Dirac Science Library is on the other side of town, and they subscribe to many of El Naschie’s favorite journals. I agree that modern research has become “big business” and too many capable researchers have sold out to the mainstream. It’s “publish or die” and the mainstream controls most of the journals, which is why I published on Lulu after two years of rejections by journals who wouldn’t say much more than that my paper “wasn’t appropriate” for their journals. Some good friends of mine have had copies of my book since November 2007, but I haven’t heard good or bad critiques or comments from any of them. They might have too much to lose from siding with an outsider like me. It’s OK – I understand. I’m not a tenured Professor with hundreds of publications, but I do have a Doctorate in Particle Physics and a few publications. That should qualify me to discuss these topics, whether other researchers choose to agree with me or not.

Bob, A. Kasim, and Sonja – El Naschie and I both defy the mainstream, but we might be different flavors of non-conformity. However, the ties between E12, 5 x 137, and M4 plus E8 are amazing. El Naschie is working with a Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Model of Particle Physics, whereas I have introduced new force quanta, new Hyperflavor/ Kaluza-Klein types of fundamental fermions, and new generations of leptoquark fermions. Although my fundamental representation might be E12, I also have singlet states and Supersymmetric partners. Adding up the degrees of freedom, I have at least 1,416 = 12 x 118 different elements in my theory. If we subtract the four 12-plets of singlet states from the 118 sets of 12-plets, and add the 12 dimensions back in, then we have 118 – 4 + 12 = 126, which looks similar to alpha bar at the electroweak scale. How’s that for a little bit of El Naschie-like numerology?

You might all enjoy reading Chapters 3 and 4 of my book “New Approaches Towards A Grand Unified Theory” on Lulu.com. I have extended the free preview to include these Chapters about my efforts to fit the fundamental coupling constants (including the fine structure constant) with Quantum Statistical Grand Unified Theory (a thermodynamic GUT/ TOE of the low-energy coupling constants).

Prof. M.S. El Naschie – Your ideas are interesting, but moderately difficult to find. Have you considered organizing your best ideas into one book? Lulu.com makes self-publishing easy and affordable, and non-conformists are welcome. I would buy your book if it was reasonably priced!

Garrett – Sorry for hijacking your blog site… What are you up to? I haven’t heard from you in a while.

Sincerely, Ray Munroe

Bob Meyers wrote on May. 29, 2008 @ 11:24 GMT
Dear Ray:

You can contact Prof. El Naschie directly or through his student nasr2000@gawab.com.

As far as I am aware El Naschie abhors internet, doesn’t use it and he doesn’t read it. He is really truly old-fashioned in this respect and guards his privacy jealously. But I can tell you could become friends.

However friendship must be based on true understanding. The expression...

Dear Ray:

You can contact Prof. El Naschie directly or through his student nasr2000@gawab.com.

As far as I am aware El Naschie abhors internet, doesn’t use it and he doesn’t read it.
He is really truly old-fashioned in this respect and guards his privacy jealously. But I can tell you could become friends.

However friendship must be based on true understanding. The expression El Naschie-like numerology is a complete misrepresentation of what it is. First the Balmer formula was a constructive piece of numerical simulation. You see nature and you try to simulate it. It was of course Bohr who improved things and then came Schrodinger and showed simply they are Eigen value of an Eigen value problem. This is how we at last understood the atom and found a deeper theoretical justification for the numerical simulation of the Balmer formula. Yet we don’t know why we have to use complex numbers in quantum mechanics and this caused all the development which took place from Lie to Lisi. Your 126 is not numerology although in your text you obtained it in a numerological way. There is a world of difference between numerology and enlightened counting. Without enlightened counting as Nobel Laureate Steven Weinberg calls it, we could have no quantum field theory. El Naschie combined enlightened counting with deep theoretical and mathematical reasoning. Let me show you how your 126 comes about. Forget spin up and spin down, then we have exactly 48 fermions and 12 bosons – all experimentally well documented forming our standard model. This makes 60 physically present types of elementary particles. Now we haven’t added the graviton nor two additional bosons similar to the w, one charged positively and the other charged negatively. We could also say we have 3 bosons, 2 charged and one neutral and forget for the time being gravitons. Either way we end with 63 particles- 60 real and 3 still to be confirmed. This is what El Naschie and Nobel Laureate Weinberg call enlightened counting.

Next comes the theoretical part. Hetoretic string theory predicts that the total number of massless states is the multiplication of left and right movers and this comes to 8064 massless states. In this counting every spin degree of freedom is considered a different particle. This is unrealistic and we can show that there are 128 different directions. If we consider up and down to be different particles, then they are 64 directions which should be eliminated by dividing 8000 by 64, we get our 126 particles. This is what you have got and it is ridiculous to call El Naschie’s procedure numerology. Well the correct result is of course 137. The simplest way to demonstrate that is by embedding the 126 in supergravity’s 11 dimensions and get 137. The more sophisticated way is to use the Kahler manifold with fuzzy dimensions which is discussed in the paper of El Naschie - referred to in earlier discussions.

There are many misunderstandings due to superficial readings of most theories and if all famous scientists and Nobel Laureates would have been right all the time, there would have been no history of science.

To Garrett, I don’t think we hijacked your blog site because really everything said here was stimulated by your work and what we are saying is very relevant to it.

Bob Meyers

Dr. Ray Munroe wrote on May. 29, 2008 @ 13:33 GMT
Dear Bob,

Yesterday was not my best work. This reconciliation between my SUSY E12 and alpha bar has been bothering me for days. My SU(11) boson GUT needs more Goldstone/ Higgs scalars to break the SU(11) symmetry down to an SU(7) and supply longitudinal degrees of freedom to the massive Q, R, U and V Grand Bosons that are sequestered on the gravity-brane. I might also need spin 3/2 leptoquarks. And we haven’t even begun to consider non-minimal Supersymmetric models. I could easily increase my particle content from 118 x 12 up to 137 x 12. It would be interesting if a 12-dimensional SUSY TOE had a particle content of 137 x 12, but it doesn’t yet feel natural to me. I haven’t given up. It is a work in progress…

The comment “El Naschie-like numerology” came across rudely, and I apologize to Prof. El Naschie, his followers, and you. What I meant is that 137, 248 and 684 are just numbers. Truly, some numbers may contain more “enlightenment” than other numbers. I understand that concept and my work is full of such kinds of numbers.

Anonymous “e” – Left and right still exist. After all, the low-energy symmetries still prefer left over right (Table 8 and Figure 3 in my book help clarify how that still occurs). It appears that we have a body-centered cubic lattice of fundamental fermions in hyperspace dimensions. As such, how we define “GUT/ TOE” depends on how many nearest-neighbors, next-nearest-neighbors, etc. we choose to include. My hyperflavor theory includes nearest-neighbor fermions, and increases fermion degrees of freedom by a factor of 7 (consider a simple cubic lattice with the origin, and one unit to the left, right, front, back, up and down). Seven is one of my “enlightened” numbers, and it carries on into SO(8) 28-plets and their respective role in E12 = 12 x (2 x 28 + 1).

Garrett – Thank you and the FQXi Community for providing a forum to discuss these ideas. I’m sure you must be busy, but we would really like to hear your ideas as well.

A. Kasim wrote on May. 29, 2008 @ 15:22 GMT
I don’t understand why a well-established Elsevier Journal such as Chaos, Solitons & Fractals with the highest impact factor amongst all international Journals of non-linear dynamics should be considered moderately difficult to find. The solution for the present deadlock in theoretical physics must come from an interdisciplinary direction. Consequently, a particle physicist must read across the artificial limits of specialization if he wants to impact particle physics. Interestingly both Garrett Lisi and Mohamed El Naschie have both a non-linear dynamics background. Nonlinear dynamics, chaos and fractals are by definition interdisciplinary.

A.Kasim

Sonja Kaliski wrote on May. 29, 2008 @ 15:25 GMT
To Ray Munroe

You are almost right but not completely in stating the difference between you and El Naschie. Your theory is essentially a so-called Technicolor. Elnaschie states clearly that his is transfinitely exact. Both of you are invoking far more particles than could be ever discovered. However, we are all talking about energy under one tesla as far as the standard model is concerned. The rest is theory – to come down to one tesla in a consistent manner. String theory is no different. They work with 8064 coming from 496 and end up with 126 or 63. El Naschie comes from 8872 down to 685 the 548 and ends up with 137 or 68.5. You start with 684 and if you do all correctly you end with something very close to 68.4 or 136.8. There is no fiddling here. It is all consistent with the E-Infinity action principle which El Naschie derives from the sphere packing density in higher dimensional space by summing over all exceptional Lie groups in analogy to Feynman’s path integral.

Sonja Kaliski

Dr. Ray Munroe wrote on May. 29, 2008 @ 19:05 GMT
Dear A. Kasim,

Yes, all of my degrees are in Physics from the same University (Florida State U.), and all of my journal articles are about Particle Physics simulation and prediction. That must appear to be a narrow field of study, and you probably wonder how I ever fell out of the mainstream? I also studied Solid State Physics and Plasma Physics in graduate school at the University of Texas. I guess you could say that crystalline symmetry groups and thermodynamics contaminated my Particle Physics Worldview. I agree that we need more “generalists” to balance out all of the “specialists” in this field of study.

Certainly, the local science library subscribes to Elsevier’s Chaos, Solitons & Fractals Journal, but I don’t personally, and $31.50 US for one article via internet is a steep price. Dear Sonja Kaliski, No, my theory is not Technicolor. I first developed a version of Quantum Statistical Grand Unified Theory in 1981, while I was a graduate student at U. Texas. I understood that I needed an extra level of quantization, and I relied on Technicolor for that purpose. My Quantum Statistical Professor didn’t like my usage of Technicolor, Technicolor went out of fashion, and I later realized that String Theory could supply this extra level of quantization. I think the difference is that Technicolor relies on deeper levels of fundamental constituents (i.e. going from composite protons to composite quarks to fundamental preons?) whereas my Hyperflavor electrons are super-massive fundamental particles that probably better correspond to Kaluza – Klein electrons. Their greater masses might make Hyperflavor electrons look like a new generation of leptons beyond the tau, thus the “flavor” part of the name. And we might have lattices of fundamental fermions in hyperspace, thus the “hyper” part of the name. Yes, we need to first understand the physics under 1 TeV. I hope that the LHC can find the light Higgs boson. If not, the proposed International Linear Collider (ILC) will have a better Signal to Noise ratio for certain types of events (I studied that machine’s performance for my 1996 doctoral thesis – It takes too long to build these machines because too many people believe that the Standard Model or the Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Model is all there is and no one wants to spend$20,000,000,000 US to measure the next two decimal places of a particle mass or an astrophysical constant). Is Supersymmetry at the Weak Scale of 1 TeV, or my Gravity Scale of 20,000 TeV? We need to carefully analyze the cosmic ray data at the 10,000 to 100,000 TeV scale and determine if we can justify a super-collider even more powerful than both the LHC and ILC.

136.8 is close to 137. But I have extra Supersymmetric and singlet states that aren’t part of the 684, and thought I was working in 12 dimensions, not 10?

Sincerely, Ray Munroe

Bob Meyers wrote on May. 31, 2008 @ 21:37 GMT
Dear Ray,

In this letter I just want to clarify once and for all times this point about numbers because we all feel very strongly about it. There is a deeply seated misunderstanding in this respect which must be eradicated. No dear friend, 137, 248 and 684 are not just numbers. Of course they are numbers but not in this case. They have been derived with a particular meaning from a definite...

Dear Ray,

In this letter I just want to clarify once and for all times this point about numbers because we all feel very strongly about it. There is a deeply seated misunderstanding in this respect which must be eradicated. No dear friend, 137, 248 and 684 are not just numbers. Of course they are numbers but not in this case. They have been derived with a particular meaning from a definite model attached to what we human beings call physical meaning. So let me stress this point because people do not understand the difference between numbers, number theory, numerical simulation and the number coming out from a theory.

If we are searching and we are searching for the number of Higgs, what do you think the end result would be – a fancy Greek letter with many tensor indices? Of course not, we will find a number, namely the number of particles. Even if somebody decides to denote it with a Cyrillic character, we have to attach to this character a number. In fact the most important thing in superstring theory is a number - namely 496 massless gauge bosons that we start with. It could not have been 500 without changing the theory. Our standard model is happy with only 12. However we have to add other things to it, namely 48 fermions.

Numerology is different. For instance Wolfgang Pauli died in a hospital suffering from cancer. The number of the room where he was hospitalized was 137. Now a superstitious scientist will feel strongly that this is a hint from a being living in higher dimensions that 137 is the secret of everything and Providence made it in such a way that the room number where a great theoretical physicist moved from the here to the hereafter is 137. I am of course exaggerating. But our procedure is by George extremely different. You remember that using Weinberg-Elnaschie enlightened counting, we reasoned that we have 63 elementary particles. We didn’t count up and down as different. If we do and of course we should, then we just multiply by 2 and get 126. If we want to consider a super-symmetric theory, then we have to have equal number of fermions and bosons and that will require us to multiply by 2 once more and we get 252. This result we reinforced using a sophisticated theory, Heterotic superstring. We start by Fock space - multiplying left and right movers we get 504. This is exactly equal to the dimension of the simple linear Lie group for n= 8. It is simply 63 x 8 = 504.

If you attempt to reduce it to what we have just counted 252, then you divide by 2. Said differently, we know that the holographic boundary of our 496 exceptional Lie manifold is Klein-modular curve with 336 symmetries. This is a well-known result and you find it using the simple Lie symmetry group for n = 7 which comes to 7 x 48 = 336. The corresponding instanton density is as well known 24. You find that in any textbook on superstring theory. The total number of instantons is simply the multiplication of the holographic boundary 336 x 24 which comes to 8064. This is exactly the number of the first level of massless states of Heterotic string theory.

To come down to the supersymmetric model you divide by 32 degrees of freedom of the corresponding spinors and the result is our 252. Should you have wanted to find the 63, you should have of course divided by the maximal total number of degrees of freedom of the spinors which is 128.

Now that we understand it all, it is really trivial. But it wasn’t always that trivial. The snag is however that this is all approximation. The correct theory should have given us 137 particles or 274 particles and sparticles as a super symmetric model. So dear Ray, all these numbers didn’t come from empty vacuum or transcendental meditation. These are all stiff analytical results. To get the 24 you must understand the theory of Kahler manifold and you can find then the Betti number and add them together or you use the wedge product of the field strength and integrate over the 4-dimensional volume. The exact value is however 26.18033989 and to find it you have to consider transfinitely fuzzy 4-dimensional Kahler manifold. This all can be found in the work of Elnaschie.

But now to a big surprise even for me. Please look into figure 15 on page 594 of volume 30 issue 3 November 2006 of Chaos, Solitons & Fractals. The title of the paper where you can find this figure is: “Elementary prerequisites for E-Infinity” by M. S. Elnaschie.
In this figure he shows us a Penrose-like fractal tiling but with a hetoretic string proportionality. I should have said transfinite hetoretic superstring proportionality. It is incredible but the invariant area is exactly equal to 685.410968. You may recall that this is also the exact volume of twice M4 manifold and I would bet my bottom dollar that if you make your E12 transfintely exact then its dimension will be precisely the same number. Now could you put your hand on your heart and swear this is numerology - Of course not. In one stroke, in this ingenious combination which Sir Roger Penrose in England, Alain Connes in France and Medhat Gazzaly also in France suspected, Regge quantum gravity, hetoretic string, hyperbolic manifold, exceptional Lie and stein-spaces and your E12 are connected. The only person who ever noticed this and completed the theory is Mohamed Elnaschie. However, he clearly didn’t know that your E12 existed as a single exceptional group. You see after E8 the Lie algebra is infinite dimensions. Elnaschie knew that there is something like E12 existed but only as a super position of many compact and non-compact exceptional Lie group. But he never knew that a single group E12 could exist. We have not seen your analysis and I haven’t communicated with Elnaschie and I don’t know his views. But I suspect he will agree with what I have said here because I studied his work meticulously. He is of course a nonlinear dynamics man in the first place. He is an engineer by training and otherwise a self-taught person. Very frequently he knows the answer before he could find rigorous mathematics to support it. But this particular piece I think is a brilliant combination brought about by luck circumstances for which Garrett Lisi has played a major role.

I sincerely hope we will never come back again to this number business and as I heard Elnaschie say quite often: “You have to use everything at your disposal to understand the phenomena”. All tools are valid - experimental, theoretical, philosophical and number theoretical including numerical simulation. That is why the Americans were so successful at many things which eluded the sophisticated Europeans. Bobacki is great but for my money Poincare is greater and Einstein is supreme.

We have to make everything as simple as possible but not simpler. That is what the great Albert used to say.

Have a nice weekend.

Bob Meyers

Dr. Ray Munroe wrote on Jun. 2, 2008 @ 22:10 GMT
Dear Bob,

All I am saying is that the concept of Alpha Bar Theory is bigger than the numbers 137, 128, etc. And the concept of TOE is bigger than the numbers 248, 684, etc. Your observation of the near equality of El Naschie’s Sum of One and Two Stein Spaces versus Five Alpha Bar versus E12 is interesting. And A. Kasim’s observation of the near equality of El Naschie’s M4 with E8 versus...

Dear Bob,

All I am saying is that the concept of Alpha Bar Theory is bigger than the numbers 137, 128, etc. And the concept of TOE is bigger than the numbers 248, 684, etc. Your observation of the near equality of El Naschie’s Sum of One and Two Stein Spaces versus Five Alpha Bar versus E12 is interesting. And A. Kasim’s observation of the near equality of El Naschie’s M4 with E8 versus E12 is also interesting. Because they originated from different concepts and nearly intersected, these may be the kinds of “enlightened counting” numbers that follow from theory.

I agree that we should use all of the tools at our disposal. I called my book “New Approaches Towards A Grand Unified Theory” because I used more than one approach towards a GUT/ TOE. Prof. El Naschie has similarly derived alpha bar different ways as well. Have you had an opportunity to Read Chapters 3 through 5 of my book? (Please use the free preview at Lulu.com). These chapters approach GUT from a thermodynamic perspective, and they include the fine structure constant and a connection with Dirac’s Large Numbers Hypothesis (10^40) – which like, Alpha Bar Theory, is another old and interesting concept that may contain “enlightenment” beyond the mere numbers.

My own counting of the degrees of freedom (dgf) in the Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Model (MSSM) is 260, not 252. I think we are modeling and counting the Higgs sector differently. We have 16 fermions per generation times three generations times (2 matter/ anti-matter) times (2 fermion/ sfermion) which gives 192 dgf. Add (8 gluons + 1 photon + 3 W/Z + 1 graviton) times (2 matter/ anti-matter) times (2 boson/ bosino) and we get 52 more dgf associated with our force-carrying bosons. Now the MSSM Higgs sector includes two complex doublet scalar fields. This is 2 x 2 x 2 = 8 more Higgs dgf: Light Higgs, Heavy Higgs, H+, H-, Pseudoscalar Higgs, and longitudinal polarizations for the Z, W+ and W-. Note that the Standard Model only introduces 4 more Higgs dgf (Light Higgs and longitudinal polarizations for the Z, W+ and W-), but this formulation is inconsistent with the definition of mass in the MSSM (Most, if not all, of the Supersymmetric particles are expected to have significant masses, so we can’t approximate down/ strange/ bottom squark and sneutrino masses as zero, and ignore these consequences). And the MSSM introduces eight more “Higgsinos” that are expected to mix eigenstates with “Zinos/ photinos” and “Winos” to form Neutralinos and Charginos, respectively. Now 192 + 52 + 16 equals 260 degrees of freedom. E8 has an order of 248. But if we are allowed 8-dimensional singlet states (similar to my decomposition of E12), then we could justify 256 (or 264 with two singlet sets) degrees of freedom contained by E8 – possibly large enough to contain either a 252-plet or a 260-plet. Alpha bar at the Z mass scale is 127.918. The number 128 times two might imply the 256 of E8 plus one 8-dimensional singlet. Such a relationship in these “enlightened” numbers (alpha bar and the MSSM dgf) might imply weak-scale SUSY, which would please many researchers at the LHC and the proposed ILC. This is somewhat consistent with the SM Higgs sector, but inconsistent with the MSSM Higgs sector. I understand that any of us could easily argue that there are many Higgs/ Goldstone bosons in an obviously broken symmetry, and that THE HIGGS of the Standard Model and the longitudinal polarizations of Z, W+ and W- are the most relevant particle states to worry about.

Creativity and Sophistication are both important. If you, Bob Meyers, want to legitimize E12 and make it more sophisticated, that’s fine with me. I know my mathematical strengths and weaknesses, and I feel much more comfortable modeling a problem than proving a theorem. I just hope that this free exchange of ideas can push Humanity closer to a better understanding of our Universe. Meanwhile, I have read a few of Prof. El Naschie’s papers, contacted Nasr Ahmed, and hope to understand more Alpha Bar Theory soon.

And we are still waiting to hear from the mysteriously absent Garrett…

Sincerely, Ray Munroe

Dr. Ray Munroe wrote on Jun. 4, 2008 @ 13:36 GMT
Dear Bob and Garrett,

I have a revision to the degrees of freedom in a Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Model. For the same reason that we can’t have only one Higgsino, we also can’t have only one gravitino. The gravitino is a spin 3/2 fermion. As such, a massless gravitino requires left, right, matter, anti-matter dgf’s for a total of four (my prior counting had two). If the gravitino is massive, then we also need to count its spin 1/2 projections – which brings the number of dgf’s up to eight. Minimal Supersymmetry doubles these numbers with spin-2 tensor bosons. The SUSY partner to the other gravitino spin state might be one of my WIMP-Gravitons – perhaps F3. The minimum number of degrees of freedom for the Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Model is 264 (if the gravitino is massless) or 272 (if the gravitino is massive). Within the Standard Model, we would consider these particles to be hypothetical – along with all of the extra bosons (Goldstone/ other Higgs, X, Y, etc.) that must have broken the original GUT symmetry. But within the Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Model, these dgf’s are fundamental to SUSY theory.

Garrett – This is not a problem for E8. E8 contains 248 dgf’s in a single representation, but 8-dimensional singlets allow us to include 264 dgf’s in one E8 plus two singlet sets (248 + 2 x 8 = 264). Because these extra Higgsino and gravitino states are not part of the Standard Model, it is appropriate to place these odd states in our extra singlets. I’m still a fan of E8. I think E12 condenses down into E8. If E12 is truly “the mother of all exceptional groups” as Bob previously stated, then it is only natural that it should decompose into the sum of all exceptional groups, including E8.

Bob – El Nashcie’s derivation of Alpha Bar from the Standard Model dgf’s is still OK. But we need to reformulate the derivation of Alpha Bar from the Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Model dgf’s. Would you like to e-mail me at mm_buyer@comcast.net, so we don’t have to post all of our rough ideas on this blog site?

Sincerely, Ray Munroe

Dr. Ray Munroe wrote on Jun. 6, 2008 @ 21:11 GMT
Dear Bob, A. Kasim, and Sonja,

I have been reading some of Prof. El Naschie’s work on E Infinity, and I think I have a better understanding of the similarities between us. When we use the symplictic transformation of a square proportioned according to the dimensional hierarchy of heterotic string theory, we get 10, 16+k, 26+k and 42+2k string dimensions (Chaos, Solitons & Fractals 30...

Dear Bob, A. Kasim, and Sonja,

I have been reading some of Prof. El Naschie’s work on E Infinity, and I think I have a better understanding of the similarities between us. When we use the symplictic transformation of a square proportioned according to the dimensional hierarchy of heterotic string theory, we get 10, 16+k, 26+k and 42+2k string dimensions (Chaos, Solitons & Fractals 30 (2006) 579-605, pg. 594, Fig. 15). If we truncate these numbers, then 16 x 42 gives us the 672 roots of E12 (except that E12 has condensed from the 16 dimensional 16 x 42 down to a 12 dimensional 12 x 56 that might be more compatible with the SO(8) 28-plets of Hyperflavor). By construction, (42+2k)/(16+k) = phi^(-2) = phi + 2, the inverse golden mean squared, 2.618. If we keep our decimal places, then (16+k) x (42+2k) = 685.41 ~ 5 alpha bar. Of Course, Bob noted the similarities with 5 alpha bar, and A. Kasim noted the similarities with (26+k) x (26+k) = 685.41, and Sonja noted the similarities between the transfinitely exact 685.41 and the integer part (2)(342) = 684 of the total elements in E12. E12 might be the closest representation to E Infinity in an integer number of dimensions.

Is it a problem that our apparently 16-dimensional 16 x 42 has condensed into the apparently 12-dimensional 12 x 56 roots of E12? In my book “New Approaches Towards A Grand Unified Theory”, I expected our 26 dimensional string to be composed of 4-dimensional Spacetime plus a dominant 3-brane (that decomposes into gravity and a 2-brane Weakbrane with sequestered Higgs and Hyperflavor bosons) plus a less-dominant 3-brane (our WIMP-gravitons and Grand bosons are sequestered on this Gravity-brane) plus three hierarchal 2-branes plus two very weak 5-branes (that may also decompose into 3-branes and 2-branes). Effectively, we are modeling the three hierarchal 2-branes (dimensions 11 through 16) as one 2-brane (dimensions 11 and 12), and collapsing 16 dimensions down into 12.

In my book, I expected the 12-dimensional E12 to condense into two 6-dimensional E6-Primes (yes, I used another exceptional group that doesn’t properly exist). The “surface area” of a unit radius hypersphere is maximized for 7 dimensions, whereas the “volume” of such a hypersphere is maximized for 5 dimensions (see the same El Naschie article above). Six dimensions are the ideal compromise between maximum area and maximum volume.

Dear Bob,

I concede that I overlooked a possibility with gravitinos, although I don’t think that this option applies to Higgsinos (look up “Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Model” on Wikipedia), and that is Majorana spinors. If our gravitino is a Majorana spinor, then we have 260 degrees of freedom (dgf). If our gravitino is a massless Dirac spinor, then we have 264 dgf’s. If our gravitino is a massive Dirac spinor with spin 3/2 and spin 1/2 projections, then we have 272 dgf’s. Which is the minimal choice? 260, Of Course! Which is the most likely choice? 272 for three reasons: 1) Considering the fact that neutrinos have mass, there are no clear examples of Majorana spinors in Nature, 2) Most, if not all, Sparticles are expected to be massive, and 3) It works better with E8 and 8-dimensional singlets than 260 does – the fact that 260 is not divisible by the rank 8 of E8 implies that something is missing.

Now 272 divided by two is 136, which is very close to alpha bar in the low-energy limit, 137.036. I’m not sure how to make up the difference. I have noticed that the non-integer part of alpha bar, 0.035999679, is close to 1/28 (to within 1% difference), and Hyperflavor theory is full of 28-plets. Do you have any ideas?

If I don’t hear anything from you or Garrett, I will assume you are busy publishing your ideas…

Sincerely, Ray Munroe

Gerhard Apeltrauer wrote on Jun. 11, 2008 @ 16:39 GMT
Dear Dr. Munroe,

I have been following your discussion with Dr. Bob Meyers. I am not familiar with your work nor with that of Dr. Lisi, but I have attended several lectures of Professor Mohamed El Naschie in Germany. I suspect you probably know what I will say but I will say it any way. There is nothing called alpha bar equals 137 full stop. The 137 is the 128, is the 127, is the 42, is the 26, is 1. It is all alpha bar but measured at different energies. So if we say the electromagnetic fine structure constant we are strictly speaking wrong, it is anything but constant. It is a function of energy. Some people think the standard model is resolution independent. This is fundamentally wrong. It is of course only weakly resolution dependent. In a sense it is not reflecting its true fractal nature but it is a fractal. You said in your last message you would like to calculate alpha bar for a minimally super symmetric standard model. Strictly speaking this is a little bit higher energy and alpha will not be exactly 137. What is nice about El Naschies theory is that all of this is part and parcel of the theory. Everything in his theory is resolution dependent.

Apart of that there is a slight misunderstanding about the theoretical and the experimental value of alpha bar at our energy scale. Please note that 137.036 is approximately the experimental value. El Naschies transfinite exact theoretical value is 137.082039325. This is equal to 20 multiplied with the inverse golden mean to the power of 4. You should not mix one with the other. This may seem as very small differences. However we know better from nonlinear dynamics. The butterfly effect is very often present in high energy particle physics. I can assure you two things. First the number of particles in the standard model is exactly 137 elementary particles and your E12 is definitely correct and I understand that some people have checked the work and found the exact integer dimension is 685, one larger than what you calculate. Congratulations for you discovery.

I predict that you will hear much great news about it, sooner rather than later.

Dr. Ray Munroe wrote on Jun. 11, 2008 @ 18:21 GMT
Dear Gerhard,

Thank you for your observations. All of these ideas are merging. I am writing a paper about them now. I will relay it to Prof. El Naschie via Nasr Ahmed within the next two or three weeks.

Sincerely, Ray Munroe

Ken Blanchard wrote on Jun. 16, 2008 @ 12:27 GMT
Dr. Ray Munroe

You may fine the following paper by two brilliant lady professors useful for your work: Golden differential geometry, published in Chaos, Solitons & Fractals doi: 10.1016/j.chaos.2008.04.007. There is also a new paper by El Naschie ‘Deriving the largest expected number of elementary particles in the standard model from the maximal compact subgroup H of the exceptional Lie group E7(-5), Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, doi:10.1016/j.chaos2008.06.004 both of which can be found on Elsevier’s Science Direct website.

I think what people are not realizing is that many things change when you move to wild topology. In this case you can change the current algebra by fusion algebra. The classical E8 of Dr. Garrett Lisi does not include this vital move. El Naschie also did not emphasize this point which in my humble opinion is more important than anything else. In a 2002 paper El Naschie touched upon this subject but did not return to it again in sufficient depth. I think his best paper is ‘Wild topology, hyperbolic geometry and fusion algebra of high energy particle physics, Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, Vol. 13, p. 1935-1945 (2002).

In this paper El Naschie chartered the solution for the problems with classical quantum field theory and essentially introduced the modification of E8.

If we go back in history we will find that Rene Descartes investigated in rudimentary form something similar. This is the logarithmic spiral. To design it you have to follow golden mean proportionality. The result is an incredible connection to a random Cantor set with the golden mean as a Hausdorff dimension. So you have here logarithmic scaling connected to the golden mean connected to Cantor sets and Hausdorff dimension. El Naschie mentioned all of that in a paper entitled The Fibonacci code behind super strings and P-Branes. An answer to M. Kaku’s fundamental question . Again he did not stress it as I had hoped he would do. Another problem comes from all these esoteric who consider the logarithmic spiral the secret of life. All such inflated claims repel serious scientists. It might be true but to put it like that is wild speculation and makes people afraid to deal with the golden mean. This is not science, it is sociology and psychology of main stream thinking, so one has to be careful here. El Naschie was maybe too careful.

Let me give you a final advice. Publish your paper on E12 as soon as you can. If you can, publish it tomorrow but in a refereed journal. Wishing you the best,

Ken Blanchard

Dr, Ray Munroe wrote on Jun. 18, 2008 @ 12:53 GMT
Dear Ken,

Thank you for the advice. Are you the “One Minute Manager” Ken Blanchard? If so, I have read that book. If not, I understand the confusion. There are at least four different Ray Munroe’s on the internet, and that doesn’t include similar names like Lee Ray, Raymond, Munro, or Monroe.

Sincerely, Ray Munroe

Steve Perkins wrote on Jun. 19, 2008 @ 18:06 GMT
Dear Lou

Your questions are correct and basic. No, these are mathematical dimensions related to the structure of E8 itself, that is to say unless you are embedding E8 in spacetime and the 57 dimensions are particularly relevant. Having said that you must understand that advanced theory intermingles real spacetime symmetry and internal symmetry. That is an important aspect about which many physicists such as A. Connes, M. El Naschie and much earlier von Neumann have written and lectured. This intermingling between spacetime dimension and internal dimension is in a limited form a tool of string theory. It is a little bit confusing I agree but one can get used to it. As for Munroe I think he should also take notice of your remark and read El Naschie’s work carefully. He will find there a solution to his E12. He may consult some of El Naschie’s recent papers on Elsevier’s site Science Direct.

A. Scott wrote on Jun. 20, 2008 @ 10:56 GMT
Hi,

I found a cool interpretation for the dimension of Munroe. It is given by this El Naschie in a paper on the net ‘A derivation of the fine structure constant from the exceptional Lie group hierarchy of the micro cosmos’. OK, on page 820 of this journal, the third equation says the sum of all exceptional groups from 1 to 12 = 685. Then on the fourth equation he writes that the same sum is equal to 5 x 137. Then we have equation number five and he writes the intrinsic dimension of E8 x 12 is = 684. This is 57 x 12 = 684. In other words, he gives Munroe’s dimension an almost cosmological interpretation. It is 12 x the intrinsic dimension of E8 and the intrinsic dimension of E8 may be the structural constant of the universe. Actually the equation has a misprint because it is typed as 648 but is clearly 684 just one less than 685. The next equation makes it very clear by dividing the total sum of 685 by the 12, which is the number of the exceptional Lie groups involved in the sum, and gets 57.083 almost that of the conjectured universe structural constant. Finally he summed all that in a Theorem No. 1.

The details of this fascinating computation may be found again in appendix A of a paper entitled ‘An outline for a quantum golden field theory’.

I think Munroe hit something really cool. El Naschie did not realize it is one group. The only person who ever mentioned that E12 with a dimension 684 or 685 or 686 is a single exceptional Lie Group is Munroe but the connection to the other theories by El Naschie and others must provide a stimuli for further worthwhile research. Who said that the blogs on the internet are useless. I think they are very useful – not always but quite frequently.

Doug B. wrote on Jul. 24, 2008 @ 17:56 GMT
Those interested in exceptional Lie groups may find an article which appeared a few weeks ago in Scientific American quite interesting. On the surface of it it is talking about fractal spacetime. Essentially this is the approach which was taken by Mohamed El Naschie to model spacetime using Cantor sets. This is very close to but not identical with L. Nottale’s fractal spacetime. I wonder if anybody sees the connection like I see it.

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=the-self-organizing-quantum-universe .

M. Steffan wrote on Aug. 13, 2008 @ 19:56 GMT
It is extremely distressing to find that a Center of Excellence such as Spinoza Inst. in the University of Utrecht, Holland led by a Nobel laureate in physics, Gerrardus ‘t Hooft is essentially publishing the same paper in Scientific American http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=the-self-organizing-quan

as well as Quantum and Classical Gravity in addition to Physics Review Letters which is completely based on the work of Laurent Nottale, Garnet Ord and Mohamed El Naschie’s Cantorian spacetime without acknowledging the work of the three.
Is that they way referred journals operate nowadays? In the age of globalization, is that the way to get to the top? You simply confiscate the work of children of lesser Gods? I sincerely hope that I am very wrong, otherwise….. no I will not say the word I was going to say.

M. Steffan

Rodney wrote on Aug. 17, 2008 @ 18:45 GMT
There are two really nice papers on Elsevier?fs Science Direct. The first is by Ray Munroe The MSSM, E8, Hyperflavor E12 and E?‡?c.., Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, doi: 10.1016/j.chaos.2008.06.024. Ray seems to have discovered the symmetry group of E-infinity theory. This is not trivial. This man seems to be a first class theoretical physicist. The second is a highly entertaining paper on the difference between number theory and numerology in physics by L. Marek-Crnjac On the vital difference between number theory?c. , Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, doi: 10.1016/j.chaos.2008.07.039. I wonder what Lisi would think of these two papers.

Dr. Ray Munroe wrote on Aug. 22, 2008 @ 13:49 GMT
Dear Rodney,

Thank you for the compliment. Yes, I’m also interested in Garrett’s opinion and feedback. I like Lisi’s E8, but I still think it is too small. I am trying to decipher the quasi-exceptional E12 and/ or El Naschie’s transfinite E-Infinity into a presentation comparable to Lisi’s E8. Thus far, I am bogged down in geometrical details like Klein’s X7 and the 24-cell. Ironically, these are the sort of geometrical objects that El Naschie has been writing about for years. Hopefully, there will be more to come at a later date… For now, I have to prepare for Tropical Storm Fay.

Sincerely, Ray Munroe

Brian P. wrote on Sep. 6, 2008 @ 19:11 GMT
Dear Ray,

I heard from a couple of my colleagues about your book. They are full of praise for it. What I do not understand if why you did not publish your work in Physics Review Letters or did you? I mean it is clear you are a first class, well trained physicist who grasps things very fast. You were able to comprehend Lisi’s work and digest Mohamed El Naschie’s voluminous work while others are still sitting incapable of making the next step. Take Garnet Ord for instance who is highly praised by El Naschie. He keeps publishing papers also in Physics Review but he did not move much since his 1984 paper. Laurent Nottale is different. He produces an enormous amount of work. He improves very slowly but unfortunately repeats the same old mistakes all over again. He is equating fractals with non-differentiability. This is a hair raising proposition for experts on fractals from Mandelbrot to Procaccia but you are really different. I have read a lot on the Scientific American site. The temperature of the discussion gets sometimes quite high but on the whole, it is quite scientific and to the point, similar to this site. Other blogs can be quite trivial and sometimes even disgusting. On a particular site belonging to someone who calls himself a conservative theoretical physicist, I found nothing but trivial and despicable slander against many people including Lisi. Any way I just wanted to tell you that your book should be published by a well known publisher so that those who see only the negative part in everything, do not equate you with vanity publishing. That would be a gross injustice to you and your work in my opinion.

Dr. Ray Munroe wrote on Sep. 8, 2008 @ 16:39 GMT
Dear Brian,

Thank you for the compliment. I have been working on these ideas for years, and I wasn’t sure if they were ready to publish or not. In 2005, I decided that I wanted to move forward with trying to publish. My prior publications were in Phys. Rev. D, so I tried that journal first. Their editorial response was “In general, Physical Review D does not publish theoretical speculations if they do not have rather substantial motivation or if they are based upon ad hoc assumptions. I regret to inform you that, in view of this, we cannot accept your manuscript for publication.” Over the next two years, I also tried to publish in European Physical Journal C, and I resubmitted the paper a couple of times (at different times) to each journal. Finally, in 2007, I decided that we live in an internet age where any idea can be distributed through tools like Lulu.com and blog sites. I know that my ideas are radical (although they yield the Standard Model at low energies), and I chose a radical form of distribution. I want to be accepted by the more conservative, refereed journals, but they never made it clear to me “What to leave in? What to leave out?”

I don’t understand everything that Lisi and El Naschie have written – we all seem to have different backgrounds and training. But I have seen similarities in our respective approaches, and that has allowed me to build on their ideas to a degree. Until I read Lisi’s paper, I was trying to build a GUT/ TOE based on Special Unitary (such as SU(5), etc.) or Special Orthogonal (such as SO(10), etc.) groups, and I had ignored the Exceptional groups. I originally thought they were too limited. But Lisi’s paper inspired me to suggest a new set of Quasi-Exceptional groups, and I am still developing that idea.

Lulu.com was a way to introduce my ideas as a book “New Approaches Towards a Grand Unified Theory”. And that book is also available on Amazon.com and the usual online retailers. The danger of publishing non-refereed science is that some might consider it vanity publishing or pseudo-science. I appreciate that El Naschie has helped get two of my papers published in the Journal of Chaos, Solitons and Fractals. Both of those papers included some fractal research. But my training is in Theoretical Particle Physics, and I probably won’t write about fractals in every paper.

Sincerely, Ray Munroe

Brian P. wrote on Sep. 8, 2008 @ 19:57 GMT
Dear Ray,

G. Carroll wrote on Nov. 21, 2008 @ 21:21 GMT
If you want to know who is or who was Mohamed El Naschie then your best bet is to ask Prof. Alastair Walker. Prof. Walker was a member of the stability research group in University College, founded by Lord Chilver. He wrote the introduction to Prof. El Naschie’s book on Stress, Stability and Chaos published 1990 by McGraw Hill. I think Walker was his thesis supervisor. Walker was last the Dean of Engineering in the University of Surrey. It is simple if you want to know the truth but of course, those who are asking these questions, do not want to know the truth.

M. Gerrard wrote on Nov. 21, 2008 @ 21:23 GMT
I have a big surprise for you. Mohamed El Naschie did not write 350 papers, he wrote about 900 papers. I am not counting his papers published in Arabic. He is practically an authority on everything. A true renaissance man. Not an Einstein but a Leonardo da Vinci when you count his phenomenal knowledge of art, music, literature, history, politics and economy. Now how can anybody master so much? I cannot tell you but he definitely does not spend his time writing defamatory letters or slandering anybody. Of course he has the opportunity and the means to do what he wants to do but this is a necessary yet not sufficient condition to achieve excellence, for that you must have character as well as courage.

A.Jones wrote on Nov. 21, 2008 @ 21:24 GMT
The best man to ask is Gerrard ‘tHooft. He is a Nobel laureate in physics from 1990 or was it 1999? Any case Mohamed El Naschie dedicated a whole issue of Chaos, Solitons & Fractals to Prof. ‘tHooft on the occasion of his birthday. He wrote a very nice Editorial about him so why go on guessing Dr. Baez? Just ask Prof. ‘tHooft about his opinion. I would have thought this was the logical and more civilized way to go about things.

Ali Khan wrote on Nov. 21, 2008 @ 21:25 GMT
I have a simple question for Dr. John Baez. If Prof. Mohamed El Naschie’s work is as horribly wrong as you are trying to convince us, why are people snatching his ideas? Why are you using his terminology and general philosophy? I think we can wait until heaven freezes and you will never give an answer, only second hand jokes and boring sarcasm with no meaning.

M. Otter wrote on Nov. 21, 2008 @ 21:27 GMT
You guys should forget all about that. The whole thing is just a diversion. If Mohamed El Naschie is sufficiently slandered and discredited then anybody can help himself to his work and call it his own. That is the only rationale behind this campaign.

John Clarke wrote on Nov. 21, 2008 @ 21:28 GMT
Suppose El Naschie has published his work in the journal of which he is the Editor in Chief. So what? This is completely common. The most important paper on chaos and turbulence written by David Ruelle, was referred by David Ruelle and published by David Ruelle in his own journal. And thank God for that; this enormously important paper would otherwise have been lost to science for ever. As David Ruelle in his popular book admitted, his paper was rejected by almost every well established journal in the world. And even if the papers were not refereed, there was nothing sinister about it. The name of the Author is clearly printed on the Journal as its Editor in Chief with all the editorial power of an Editor in Chief. Everything was transparent. How could anybody derive from this fact that he is free to borrow generously from these papers as much as he wants without giving the Author credit? The most important thing is that these papers are published. If you do not like them, you should not use them. If you use them you must refer to them. Anything else is very bad logic and I do not find the way Dr. Ambjorn, Dr. Loll and Dr. Jurkiewicz dealt with this problem convincing nor acceptable. They have never commented nor gave any explanation to anyone as if they were above the law, written or unwritten. I do not think this is something good and the diversion created by Dr. Baez makes things even far worse. Trying to involve Nature and push one of its journalists, Mr Schiermeier to write something about Chaos, Solitons & Fractals is probably the worse course of action possible. Why don’t people learn from history. Watergate, Lewinskygate and so many other gates. It seems that the only thing man learns from history is that man does not learn from history.

Jack wrote on Nov. 21, 2008 @ 21:29 GMT
I would like to come back to the connection between Mohamed El Naschie’s work and the paper on causal sets published in Classical & Quantum Gravity and mentioned on this site. The Author of this paper is a Professor in Imperial College. Interestingly Dr. Renate Loll got her Ph.D. from Imperial College although she is German and is working in Holland. I wonder what this means for the work of Prof. El Naschie. It is completely based on partially ordered sets. Maybe I am becoming paranoid.

Disgusted wrote on Nov. 22, 2008 @ 22:06 GMT
Everybody knows for whose account John Baez is working. He builds an army for slander made of Dr. Skoda the intimidator. He allied himself with Loll and her co-authors. It is all about money. It is all about illegal money. Everyone knows the relation between Scientific American and Nature. Nature is coming to the rescue of their sister magazine. Trying to capture a share of the market. Google is reporting the fabricated evidence of John Baez. What John Baez is doing is not bordering on criminality, it is criminal. He blocked his site and allows only his fellow intimidators and slanderers to write comments. We have Dodge City justice and all in the name of the main stream interest groups. Of course you are going to delete his comment, Mr. Lisi as you too have been drafted in. We have seen your comments in The n-Category Café hideaway. The truth will come out about all of you and justice will prevail. Go on with your slander and intimidation. You have all the rope in the world to hand yourselves.

D. Hume wrote on Nov. 23, 2008 @ 15:50 GMT
The work of Mohamed El Naschie could be easily understood in terms of theories connected to quantum logic and quantum sets. Quantum sets was discussed in different forms by David Finkelstein from Georgia Tech. It is related to some pioneering work done in the early days of the Copenhagen Interpretation in Germany. To be more specific, El Naschie s Cantor set theory is a computational version of the theory known as partially ordered sets or posets. This theory was developed in England and was revived recently using what is called Causal Set Theory. It is well known that the work of El Naschie is based on the deterministically chaotic sets. Loosely speaking, partially ordered set may be envisaged as a deterministically chaotic one and in a relatively recent work published in the proceedings of the American Institute of Physics, Mohamed El Naschie compared his work to that of G. tHooft s recent call for a revision of quantum mechanics as following: While tHooft is looking at the roots of deterministic quantum mechanics, El Naschie found that these roots are deterministically random classical mechanics.

It is not possible to understand new ideas unless one is open to new ideas. I am quite confident that a new quantum field theory based on discrete posets will be fully developed in the next few years. Many will ask themselves then, how could we have possibly misunderstood El Naschie s work for numerology while anyone, with a minimum of goodwill, will recognize it immediately as computational quantum set theory.

D. Hume

D. Hume wrote on Nov. 23, 2008 @ 15:51 GMT
The Case of John Baez, Renate Loll and John Ambjorn

Following Prof. Keyes comments, I read the site of John Baez. There is not a shred of a doubt in my mind that Renate Loll and her colleagues have enticed their publisher Dr. Baez to launch this vicious attack against Prof. Mohamed El Naschie. I cannot fathom that any respectable Professor in a respectable University such as UC Riverside could indulge in such character assassination. Has Dr. Baez introduced a new profession to science: scientific vigilantism and paid for scientific assassins. It is a black day for science and academia.

D. Hume

R. Meyer wrote on Nov. 23, 2008 @ 15:53 GMT
The case of John Baez n-Category Caf? concur with what has been written before and warn everybody from this shadowy caf?Fraud and forgery are the means. Comments are blocked for anyone who is not a member of the gang. Names and addresses are false and the allegations are too idiotic to have a trace of any truth in them. How could UC Riverside allow such garbage to be connected with their name?

R. Meyer

Justice wrote on Nov. 23, 2008 @ 15:55 GMT
If John Baez thinks anybody is stupid enough to believe the trash he is writing then I am truly looking forward to see him in a cross examination in an American Court. John Baez must have lost his marbles if he ever had any. What is incredible however is that his name is listed as a visitor in Spinoza Institute, University of Utrecht, Holland. Where did I hear this address before?

S. Justice

Noyes wrote on Nov. 23, 2008 @ 15:56 GMT
With respect my learned friends, it is wholly untrue that Mohamed El Naschie publishes his papers exclusively in Chaos, Solitons & Fractals. Here are two samples of about 250 others. First, Superstrings, knots and noncommutative geometry in E-infinity space, published in Int. Journal of Theoretical Physics, Vol. 37, No. 12, 1998. The Editor-in-Chief is Prof. David Finkelstein from Georgia Tech University, himself a distinguished theoretical physicist. I know that the referee of this particular paper was connected to the Nobel prize. Second, Average exceptional Lie group hierarchy and high energy physics, published in Frontiers of Fundamental & Computational Physics. American Inst. of Physics 2008, AIP Conference Proceedings, 1018. Mohamed El Naschie presented his work and lectured in the presence of the following Nobel laureates in physics: Gerrardus ‘tHooft, Douglas Osheroff, Ilya Prigogine, Anthony Leggett, Gerd Bennig. He was in countless conferences and has been honored by numerous universities and institutions all over the world. Even lacking all of that, what right does anyone have to slander and defame out of hatred, jealousy and god knows what else in such a despicable way as what I have witnessed on the modern menace of our age of so called scientific blogs.

Noyes wrote on Nov. 23, 2008 @ 15:58 GMT
The correct way to start to understand El Naschie’s work is set theory and quantum probability. An excellent starting point is probably the work of Stanley P. Gudder from the University of Denver, Colorado. On page 75/76 of his classical book published by Academic Press in 1988 he introduces posets. This is an abbreviation for partially ordered sets. In May 1996 Gudder published an excellent paper edited by Prof. M.S. El Naschie. The paper was entitled Hyperfinite quantum random walks. Gudder, as befitting a great mathematical physicist of his stature, acknowledged the work of Prof. S. Hemion, an outstanding British mathematician working in Germany. To close the circuit Hemion, in a pioneering paper entitled A class of partially ordered sets acknowledged Mohamed El Naschie’s work as an application of his theory in physics. Hemion cited the following paper of El Naschie Average symmetry, stability and ergodicity of multidimensional Cantor sets. This paper was published in the old version of the present day European Journal of Physics. This was the journal where Einstein published many of his papers and it was located in Italy and called N. Cimento. This particular paper is in No. 109, p. 149 (1994). Defamatory allegations are extremely ugly. In the scientific milieu it is rare and takes such vicious form only when someone has something to hide. I wish those who are tormented by envy and jealousy would thoroughly research the subject first before making such despicable allegations.

D. Sage wrote on Nov. 23, 2008 @ 16:00 GMT
It is a shameless and blatant lie perpetuated by those who fear nothing more than the truth that Prof. Mohamed El Naschie publishes his papers exclusively in his Journal. You simply need to look into the International Journal of Theoretical Physics, vol. 37 no. 12 December 1998, pages 2935-2951. The paper in this Journal whose editor in chief is a highly respected professor of Georgia Tech., namely David Finkelstein is entitled: Superstrings, knots, and non-commutative geometry in E-Infinity space. The paper was received by the Journal on March the 21st of 1998. The address of Prof. El Naschie at this time was the Department of Applied Mathematics and Theoretical Physics in Cambridge, England. The paper was accepted at once as submitted by the editorial board which comprised names such as: Nobel Laureate in Physics, Steven Weinberg and Chen-Ning Yang in addition to Sir Roger Penrose, Sheldon Glashow and Yuval Neeman, Leonard Susskind of Stanford and a past teacher of Prof. Mohamed El Naschie, Carl .F. Von Weizsaecker . It is a profound paper with hardly any number theory involved. It is all set theory. Any person must ask himself why now this vicious campaign masterminded by John Baez of n-Category café blog and UC Riverside. Prof. El Naschie has been publishing his work for 17 years so again why now? The obvious answer is the present paper published in Scientific American by Renate Loll and her co-authors. The numerous comments on this site bear witness to the real motives than anything else which I could possibly say.

Sage

M.Eslam wrote on Nov. 23, 2008 @ 16:01 GMT
Why are all these people ganging against Mohamed El Naschie? Is it because of the name Mohamed? Barrack Obama was subjected to something similar because of his middle name Hussein. Are these powerful groups afraid that the Obama effect which took place on the political level could be repeated by El Naschie on the scientific level? I wonder.

W. Martin wrote on Nov. 23, 2008 @ 16:03 GMT
Using set theory for a discrete space time makes a great deal of sense. I am intrigued by what previous commentators said about the connection between El Naschie theory and the work of Stanley Gudder and G Hemion. I think it is correct to describe the work on E-Infinity theory as computational posets. In this connection I just came across a brand new paper titled: Particle propagators on discrete spacetime- written by Steven Johnston and published in Classical and Quantum Gravity, 25 September 2008.

When you read this paper thoroughly, you realize that it is the same program as the work of El Naschie. I personally think that Coexter and Reflection Groups is a better mathematical foundation for the program of El Naschie. But the relation between Steven Johnston and the work of El Naschie is truly remarkable.

R. Walker wrote on Nov. 23, 2008 @ 16:04 GMT
Some have been asking, although with nothing good in the back of their minds, what El Naschie was doing as a Ph.D. student. I found a remarkable book on Stability and Catastrophe by J.M.T. Thompson, University College, London and a fellow of the Royal Society. The book is called: Instabilities and Catastrophes in Science and Engineering and published in 1982 by John Wiley and Sons. In this book and on page 54, Sir J. M. T. Thompson writes: The buckling and post buckling of a strut on an elastic foundation with a free, un-pinned end has been discussed by El Naschie who has also elucidated the mechanics of ring buckling.

I have inquired further and found out that both Thompson and El Naschie were working in a famous stability research group founded and directed by Lord Henry Chilver who was the adviser of Margaret Thatcher on all research and higher education matters.

I.Ottmear wrote on Nov. 23, 2008 @ 16:06 GMT
I have a hunch that it is not religion or racial discrimination which is causing many so-called respectable gentlemen to gang against Mohamed El Naschie. I think it has something to do with King Faisal Prize. It has something to do with the manipulation that takes place. Arabs are well known to fight against one another. They rather see a foreigner win than one of their own. It is a strange aberration of this once great nation. Somebody is capitalizing on this inglorious characteristic. I think I know that a man who answers to the name of Al Hindi is twisting things to the benefit of certain people whose names have been mentioned on this site many times.

F.Tengelin wrote on Nov. 23, 2008 @ 16:08 GMT
The holy grail of quantum gravity is an exact calculation of the super symmetric inverse coupling. Nobel Laureate Steven Weinberg in his well known classical book - The theory of Field, he calculated this coupling and found that it is equal to 17. Mohamed El Naschie, on the other hand, made the same calculation and concluded that it must be in the region of 24 and subsequently introduced an exact theory and found that the integer value must be 26. Now it is very easy to find who is right and who is wrong. If the Nobel Laureate is wrong, then all what I am saying is give Mohamed El Naschie a chance. This sounds like the Beatle song by John Lennon. But seriously why don’t you write to Nobel Laureate Steven Weinberg and ask him. He is in Austin, Texas. This is the same University where the owner of the n-Category café occupies a position of a Professor of Physics. Alternatively if you are afraid to write to a truly great Nobel Laureate in Physics, which Steven Weinberg is, then write to an expert on the subject in CERN. The man to write to and I think he probably knows El Naschie is John Ellis. I think this is the way to settle scientific disputes. This is an elegant valid and intelligent way to stop all this ongoing slander which is foreign to all scientific values which we all cherish.

J.M. Nader wrote on Nov. 23, 2008 @ 16:09 GMT
They are waiting, according to their statement, for David Clark to answer an unsigned scientific report by the elite of Theoretical Physics worldwide written in pigeon English which implies pigeon brains and pigeon physics. Does anyone expect a respectable person to respond to such nonsense! Look at the high standards of Scientific American and Nature. Look at how they conduct their blogs and comments – no censorship and also no nonsense. Dr. John Baez you can always learn from your mistakes.

elokaby wrote on Nov. 23, 2008 @ 16:10 GMT
Dr. F. Tengelin was quicker than me or more brave than me. I was just thinking of saying the same thing. Let me make his statement more precise. Prof. Steve Weinberg who developed the electro weak theory and shared the Nobel prize with two others is the author of the most authoritative book on quantum field theory. In volume 3 of his book The Quantum Theory of Fields published by Cambridge University Press in 2000 he states on page 192 that the inverse super symmetric unification coupling of all fundamental gauge forces is 17.5. This value is given by his equation 28.2.19. Finding this result scared me quite a bit because I used Prof. El Naschie s result which comes to 24.28. This is a large discrepancy. I repeated the calculation again and again but I always found 24.28 and never 17.5. To make things worse Prof. El Naschie noticed immediately that 17.5 must be a miscalculation and said that the exact integer value must be 26. That means 17.5 must be wrong and 24.28 is only an approximation to the exact value which is 26. He said it is obvious that 26 must be correct. He directed me to his paper in Chaos, Solitons & Fractals 35, p. 862 (2008) entitled Non-perturbative super symmetric quantum gravity coupling. I am desperate to know who is right and who is wrong? This result will not affect either the career of a Nobel laureate or the career of a well established professor but it could be devastating for me. I would be extremely grateful to anyone who could help me decide who is right, Prof. Weinberg or Prof. El Naschie. Please send me your answers as quick as possible to the address below.

Ayman Elokaby

Dept. of Physics

University of Alexandria

Egypt

G. Carroll wrote on Nov. 23, 2008 @ 16:11 GMT
If you want to know who is or who was Mohamed El Naschie then your best bet is to ask Prof. Alastair Walker. Prof. Walker was a member of the stability research group in University College, founded by Lord Chilver. He wrote the introduction to Prof. El Naschie’s book on Stress, Stability and Chaos published 1990 by McGraw Hill. I think Walker was his thesis supervisor. Walker was last the Dean of Engineering in the University of Surrey. It is simple if you want to know the truth but of course, those who are asking these questions, do not want to know the truth.

G. Carroll

M. Gerrard wrote on Nov. 23, 2008 @ 16:13 GMT
I have a big surprise for you. Mohamed El Naschie did not write 350 papers, he wrote about 900 papers. I am not counting his papers published in Arabic. He is practically an authority on everything. A true renaissance man. Not an Einstein but a Leonardo da Vinci when you count his phenomenal knowledge of art, music, literature, history, politics and economy. Now how can anybody master so much? I cannot tell you but he definitely does not spend his time writing defamatory letters or slandering anybody. Of course he has the opportunity and the means to do what he wants to do but this is a necessary yet not sufficient condition to achieve excellence, for that you must have character as well as courage.

M. Gerrard

A.Jones wrote on Nov. 23, 2008 @ 16:13 GMT
The best man to ask is Gerard ‘tHooft. He is a Nobel Laureate in physics for 1990 or was it 1999? Any case Mohamed El Naschie dedicated a whole issue of Chaos, Solitons & Fractals to Prof. ‘tHooft on the occasion of his birthday. He wrote a very nice Editorial about him so why go on guessing Dr. Baez? Just ask Prof. ‘tHooft about his opinion. I would have thought this was the logical and more civilized way to go about things.

A.Jones

Ali Khan wrote on Nov. 23, 2008 @ 16:15 GMT
I have a simple question for Dr. John Baez. If Prof. Mohamed El Naschie’s work is as horribly wrong as you are trying to convince us, why are people snatching his ideas? Why are you using his terminology and general philosophy? I think we can wait until heaven freezes and you will never give an answer, only second hand jokes and boring sarcasm with no meaning.

Ali Khan

M. Otter wrote on Nov. 23, 2008 @ 16:16 GMT
You guys should forget all about that. The whole thing is just a diversion. If Mohamed El Naschie is sufficiently slandered and discredited then anybody can help himself to his work and call it his own. That is the only rationale behind this campaign.

John Clarke wrote on Nov. 23, 2008 @ 16:17 GMT
Suppose El Naschie has published his work in the journal of which he is the Editor in Chief. So what? This is completely common. The most important paper on chaos and turbulence written by David Ruelle, was referred by David Ruelle and published by David Ruelle in his own journal. And thank God for that; this enormously important paper would otherwise have been lost to science for ever. As David Ruelle in his popular book admitted, his paper was rejected by almost every well established journal in the world. And even if the papers were not refereed, there was nothing sinister about it. The name of the Author is clearly printed on the Journal as its Editor in Chief with all the editorial power of an Editor in Chief. Everything was transparent. How could anybody derive from this fact that he is free to borrow generously from these papers as much as he wants without giving the Author credit? The most important thing is that these papers are published. If you do not like them, you should not use them. If you use them you must refer to them. Anything else is very bad logic and I do not find the way Dr. Ambjorn, Dr. Loll and Dr. Jurkiewicz dealt with this problem convincing nor acceptable. They have never commented nor gave any explanation to anyone as if they were above the law, written or unwritten. I do not think this is something good and the diversion created by Dr. Baez makes things even far worse. Trying to involve Nature and push one of its journalists, Mr Schiermeier to write something about Chaos, Solitons & Fractals is probably the worse course of action possible. Why don’t people learn from history. Watergate, Lewinskygate and so many other gates. It seems that the only thing man learns from history is that man does not learn from history.

John Clarke

J. Lord wrote on Nov. 23, 2008 @ 16:18 GMT
I would like to come back to the connection between Mohamed El Naschie’s work and the paper on causal sets published in Classical & Quantum Gravity and mentioned on this site. The Author of this paper is a professor in Imperial College. Interestingly Dr. Renate Loll got her Ph.D. from Imperial College although she is German and is working in Holland. I wonder what this means for the work of Prof. El Naschie. It is completely based on partially ordered sets. Maybe I am becoming paranoid.

J. Lord

Noyes wrote on Nov. 23, 2008 @ 16:22 GMT
It is obvious to me that the inverse coupling constant calculated by El Naschie is correct while that given by Nobel laureate Steven Weinberg is wrong. Printing errors or mistakes are common among the best of us, Nobel laureates not excluded. So there is nothing unusual about that. What is unusual or rather interesting is how quickly Mohamed El Naschie and Elokaby noticed the error. The value...

It is obvious to me that the inverse coupling constant calculated by El Naschie is correct while that given by Nobel laureate Steven Weinberg is wrong. Printing errors or mistakes are common among the best of us, Nobel laureates not excluded. So there is nothing unusual about that. What is unusual or rather interesting is how quickly Mohamed El Naschie and Elokaby noticed the error. The value given by Weinberg in his book The Quantum Theory of Field, Vol. 3 is 17.5. This is the inverse unification coupling in case of super symmetry. Most of the values found in the literature are around 24. Mohamed El Naschie summarized these results in Table 5 of his paper On a class of general theories for high energy particle physics, Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, 14 (2002), p. 657. Using the perturbated equation of Weinberg, El Naschie and later Elokaby found that the value is about 24 so I can conclude from that, as did El Naschie, that there was a minor arithmetical mistake. However using the exact non-perturbated equation developed by El Naschie, the exact integer value is 26. I have not explained yet how he could have noticed so quickly that 17.5 is definitely wrong. To explain that satisfactorily we need to look into the non-super symmetric case. Weinberg gives this value on p. 247 of the same book to be 41. Now this is reasonable as indicated from the values gathered from the literature in Table 6, p. 658 of the above mentioned paper of El Naschie. Again El Naschie gives the exact integer value using his exact equation as 42. Notice that the difference between 26 and 42 is exactly 16 and the difference between 26 and 16 is exactly 10. Let us go on and note that the difference between 16 and 10 is 6 and the difference between 10 and 6 is 4. 4 on the other hand is either 2 multiplied with 2 or 2 plus 2. I am sure you have already noticed it is a Fibonacci Gross law starting with 2 and 2 as seeds. The 2 could be interpreted physically as the two-dimensional world sheet of string theory. When two world sheets interact together, they span the four-dimensional spacetime and then we obtain the string hierarchy of Heterotic string theory. I will not go into that. This is all explained admirably countless times in the equally countless number of papers which El Naschie has published but alas no one reads. That is how El Naschie noticed immediately that 17.5 cannot be right. In a very recent lecture El Naschie gave a highly interesting physical meaning for the wrong value 17 found by Weinberg but it will lead to far to start discussing this again.

From all of the above I conclude that El Naschie has found a sound method, a model or a theory which ever you prefer to call it which can serve as an excellent additional tool in exploring the Planck regime and quantum gravity. It is better to discuss the contents of a paper, not the address of an Author, his affiliation and whether the post office from which he mailed his paper was near to the Editorial Office or not. We are paying a very high price for our advances in technology and methods of communication, particularly the internet. The internet has encouraged things like pedophilia and pseudo scientific blogs devoted to slander and character assassination. We have to learn to live with that and ignore and non-scientific parasitic phenomena associated with technical progress. In this sense I end my comment.

M. Achok wrote on Nov. 23, 2008 @ 16:25 GMT
Cheer envy has brought the people at the n-Category caf? to a state of hallucination. If you don t believe it, just log into their site and see the great discoveries they have found. Post office addresses, email addresses and what have you. Truly grandiose stuff. All that because it takes only a golden bullet to kill Mohamed El Naschie. Didn t Lawrence of Arabia say something similar after he freed Aqaba

H. Hedini wrote on Nov. 23, 2008 @ 16:25 GMT
Yes I agree Mohamed El Naschie could produce a paper a day. That must seem to the Philistines terrifying. I know the guy since we were together in elementary school. At the beginning he was the class primus. But as his interests multiplied, he was not doing in the final year exams as good as he could. He regained his supremacy when he graduated from the University in Hannover. The guy could produce an original idea every one hour. It could be in science, art, philosophy or politics. It can be sometime unnerving for those around him. But he is simply a bundle of energy.

T. Alisons wrote on Nov. 23, 2008 @ 16:26 GMT
I see that it sounds incredible that a guy can produce 350 original research papers in such a short time. However this is all what the slanderer wants you to believe. EL Naschie was the editor in chief of Chaos, Solitons & Fractals for almost 20 years. When you divide 350 by 20 this is a very modest number of papers per month. However I admit that his rate of production increased enormously as he got older. Well off and retired at the age of 66 he worked with more energy and concentration than 60 of the Baez type of the neo-flower power generation. I think Mohamed El Naschie works feverishly with such intensity because he realized how slow the mainstream in theoretical physics comprehends new ideas. So he keeps presenting the same idea from enormous different viewpoints appealing to different specializations with the hope they understand. That explains to me the relatively high number of papers he has produced. That will not explain anything to those who really want nothing else but discredit the guy by hook or crook and mostly by crook.

R. Badio wrote on Nov. 23, 2008 @ 16:28 GMT
John Baez has a book published in World Scientific called Gauge Field, Knots and Gravity. The picture on the front page shows a rope made to a knot connected by Feynmans’s gauge graphs and under it Einstein’s equation of general relativity. J. Baez accused El Naschie of mixing too many things together. I find it really a case of the oven calling the pot black. [LOL --Ed] I read also the book from beginning to end and I see why Baez is jealous. He was never able to break free from the standard knowledge of the field. He did not even discuss wild knots and wild topology. That is why he cannot reach the sweeping generalization which Mohamed El Naschie was able to reach by including wild topology. The editor of the series, Louis Kauffman, will understand what I am saying here. Kauffman is an excellent man and he is the one who stimulated Mohamed El Naschie work on wild topology in high energy physics. Baez did not understand the meaning of 8 multiplied by Pi square although he writes it everywhere in his book. If he wants to understand it, he better stop slandering Mohamed El Naschie and instead of trying to find his telephone number and home address, he should read his work attentively.

A. Mustafa wrote on Nov. 23, 2008 @ 16:28 GMT
What my friends are calling Philistines are frightened from one paper a day by El Naschie. They say he cannot do it. Mohamed El Naschie like his most beloved hero Barrack Hussein Obama, said yes we can. And I say yes he did.

Magyar wrote on Nov. 23, 2008 @ 16:31 GMT
I have watched for a while how the plot against Prof. El Naschie is unfolding. I see clearly that his main mistake is that he is not amused by the sight of people plagiarizing his work. It is this and nothing else which has motivated the despicable actions of John Baez and his fellow conspirators from the n-Category Caf?. They smuggled their advertisements into Nature. They dragged Lisi into it. They attempt to drag good people with good reputations to help them in their smear campaign. It is all for the money. Research funding is short so you grab what you can. It is interesting to see analogy with the oil thieves. You want oil free of charge so you start slandering an entire country and invent stories about weapons of mass destruction. Now you want to steal the work of El Naschie in order to get a King Faisal prize or even more, then you only need to slander him. Accuse him of being an Editor in Chief. After that, all is very simple. You just help yourself and publish the stolen goods where you like, in Nature or Physics Review or Classical and Quantum Gravity. The behavior of these people is truly revolting. I truly regret the day I became a scientist, to become one of those people. I hope you are not going to sensor these comments and I hope that Nature and Google report it so that the world knows about the filth which the n-Category Caf? is inundating us with. However I am expecting that this site of Scientific American will be closed very soon on the orders of you know who. This is the freedom of information in the age of the internet and blogs dictatorship.

To know more about the criminal record of John Baez as a slanderer and defamatory of the first n-Category Café class, please log in to http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?m=200610. John Baez is a criminal with a criminal record hiding in the clothes of a mathematical physicist. He admitted on his own blog that he character assassinates people for money. He said wordly, and you can read it, ‘To character assassinate Prof. Edward Witten of Princeton you cannot afford it, you have to pay a lot of money but to character assassinate Prof. Mohamed El Naschie is reasonably priced.’ His words, it is easy. When you read that remember this guy calls himself a professor in Riverside University, California, USA. Goodness gracious, what kind of world are we living in.

One final note before I sign off: We need say nothing further about John Baez but refer you to what Einstein thinks of him! Needless to say, it is not a lot. Have a look at this site for yourself. It puts all this man’s ramblings into perspective. Perhaps John is under the impression he is God himself?

A.M. wrote on Nov. 26, 2008 @ 13:36 GMT
Mohamed El Naschie is the elder brother, teacher and friend of Amr Elnashai, Director of the largest earthquake engineering centre in the USA at Urbana, Champagne. In a special issue of CS&F dedicated to Mohamed’s 60th birthday Amr wrote a wonderful tribute to his brother entitled Recollections. The El Naschie’s are one of Egypt’s most distinguished and richest families and all three brothers are famous. Said, the middle brother is ia a famous professor at Pensilvania State University. Although he has some serious health problems he is a distinguished professor of environmental studies and a world renowned researcher of chaos in chemical engineering. He dedicated two of his books published by Gordon & Breach to Mohamed El Naschie. You should see http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=the-self-organizing-quan
tum-universe and http://www.telegraph.co.uk/scienceandtechnology/science/scie
icists-with-theory-of-everything.html#postComment.

Flower of May wrote on Nov. 26, 2008 @ 13:40 GMT
In volume one, issue one of Chaos, Solitons & Fractals the founding Editor in Chief Prof. Mohamed El Naschie set out aims, objectives and the philosophy of the journal almost two decades ago. In his Editorial he wrote that it is an interdisciplinary journal in the lost traditions of people like Leonardo da Vinci and Poincare. He said it would be off center and tolerant with an emphasis on applications of nonlinear dynamics. The man seems to have remained faithful to his project. You can read it all on Elsevier’s Science Direct site. It sometimes helps to read and understand before one embarks on a rampage.

Enlightened wrote on Nov. 26, 2008 @ 14:06 GMT
As mentioned in an earlier comment, here is the Editorial for the first issue:

Today, it must be difficult to find a scientist of stature who would deny the influence of the broad sweep of developments in science, philosophy or even art on his specialized research. Ludwig Boltzmann, founder of statistical mechanics, gave a good example of this when he proposed to name the 19th century, the...

As mentioned in an earlier comment, here is the Editorial for the first issue:

Today, it must be difficult to find a scientist of stature who would deny the influence of the broad sweep of developments in science, philosophy or even art on his specialized research. Ludwig Boltzmann, founder of statistical mechanics, gave a good example of this when he proposed to name the 19th century, the century of Charles Darwin - not of electricity nor of steam. Likewise Robert May, who recognized deterministic chaos in population dynamics and economic cycles, is a physicist not a demographer nor an economist. I cannot see such new discoveries arising except from thinkers with an

interdisciplinary stance. Of course, there have been times when there were practical benefits in the narrow view. In the early days of the Royal Society it was virtually forbidden to talk about the grand design and philosophical issues. Scientists and practical men took refuge in the absolute objectivity of specialized science in order

to counterbalance the misuse of metaphysics. Nevertheless there have been frequent dissenters even among rigorous modem mathematicians. George Cantor, for instance, regarded metaphysics as a most important part of his work on transfinite sets, which is a cornerstone of today’s nonlinear science. Cantor reluctantly eliminated philosophical reasoning from his papers and only at the insistence of his friend Mittag-Leffler, the Editor of Acfu Mathemafica. It was Thomas Kuhn and Paul Feyerabend who dealt a final blow to the superficial mathematical objectivity based on the narrow view of science. They showed how objectivity has to be understood in a global cultural context. This point might be nicely illustrated by the connection between Prigogine’s early fascination with history and the revolution he initiated in irreversible non-equilibrium thermodynamics,

another cornerstone of nonlinear science. Similarly, Mitchell Feigenbaum came to universal behaviour in nonlinear maps from electrical engineering via nuclear physics. His interest in mathematical physics is rivalled only by his passionate interest in Goethe, Mahfous and Puccini. In an even wider context, I believe that political science would have looked very different if Toynbee and Spengler had known about the possibility of complete nonperiodicity in a completely deterministic system. It seems that history has made a full rotation. We understand now that returning to interdisciplinary thinking may hold the key to the future. Prigogine among others has contributed essentially to our understanding of this point. Five years ago it seemed that a very high level, scientifically tolerant and wide ranging periodical might help a little in restoring the scientific traditions of people like D’Vinci, Gauss and Poincare. After some delay, that eccentric thought is now reality. I would have liked to have taken the credit for the dedicated work which has made this journal possible. Alas, it is not even remotely so. As a person who worked mainly in engineering design, management and politics, I take a broad and serious interest in nonlinear science and have merely suggested an obvious

idea. Almost everything else in the creation of this journal is the work of the numerous members of the Editorial Board: mathematicians, physicists and engineers, who are well known internationally. Some of them are the pioneers who laid the foundation of the subject. I am particularly grateful to Professors P.C. Mllller, E. Kreutzer, Y. Ichikawa, G. Casati, G. Schmidt, A. Jeffrey, G. Rega, H. 0. Peitgen, T. Kapitaniak, C. Grebogi and G. Herrmann. The journal would have remained only an idea without the generous support and encouragement given by Professors Sir Herman Bondi, I. Prigogine, B. Chirikov,

Y. Ueda, 0. Rossler and Sir Brian Pippard. Lack of space prevents me from mentioning the role of every member of the Editorial Board but to all of them I give my deep and sincere appreciation, especially to my lifelong friend H E Professor S. Al Athel for his unstinting support of the project. The scientific policy of our journal is mainly the responsibility of the Honorary Editors and the regional and associate Editors, who will review this policy from time to n.me as necessary. The Editorial Board on the other hand support and guide the practical business of publishing the journal, refereeing papers and

encouraging the submission of manuscripts to the journal.

The journal emphasis is on applications. However, and in accordance with our general philosophy, theoretical, experimental and numerical studies of a fundamental nature will also be encouraged to give a balanced picture of current advances in nonlinear science.

Our publishers have allocated a generous number of pages and are willing to print illustrations in colour to enhance the clarity of presentation. The refereeing will be rigorous but rapid and publication will be fast.

In conclusion allow me a few informal words at the risk of appearing facetious. I. Stewart wittily remarked in his delightful book Does God Play Dice? that anyone who thinks in terms of a model stripped to the bare essentials, such as E. Lorenz’s model of climate, becomes a mathematician. Consequently he concluded, chaos was discovered by mathematicians. To that I would like modestly to remark that since H. Poincare, the undisputed first discoverer of chaos, was trained first in engineering, following the

Napoleonic traditions, then it follows that chaos was discovered by engineers, a word which derives from ingenuity. At a minimum let us agree that there is room for all sorts of creative thinking, at least in this journal.

I sincerely hope that this will be a truly interdisciplinary journal which is not only useful, applications oriented and informative, but also true to what must be the prime objectives of life, elevating and enjoyable. Judging by the first issue it seems we are well on our way to achieving just that.

M. S. El Naschie

Enlightened wrote on Nov. 26, 2008 @ 17:45 GMT
As mentioned in an earlier comment, here is the Editorial for the first issue:

"Today, it must be difficult to find a scientist of stature who would deny the influence of the broad sweep of developments in science, philosophy or even art on his specialized research. Ludwig Boltzmann, founder of statistical mechanics, gave a good example of this when he proposed to name the 19th century, the...

As mentioned in an earlier comment, here is the Editorial for the first issue:

"Today, it must be difficult to find a scientist of stature who would deny the influence of the broad sweep of developments in science, philosophy or even art on his specialized research. Ludwig Boltzmann, founder of statistical mechanics, gave a good example of this when he proposed to name the 19th century, the century of Charles Darwin - not of electricity nor of steam. Likewise Robert May, who recognized deterministic chaos in population dynamics and economic cycles, is a physicist not a demographer nor an economist. I cannot see such new discoveries arising except from thinkers with an interdisciplinary stance. Of course, there have been times when there were practical benefits in the narrow view. In the early days of the Royal Society it was virtually forbidden to talk about the grand design and philosophical issues. Scientists and practical men took refuge in the absolute objectivity of specialized science in order to counterbalance the misuse of metaphysics. Nevertheless there have been frequent dissenters even among rigorous modem mathematicians. George Cantor, for instance, regarded metaphysics as a most important part of his work on transfinite sets, which is a cornerstone of today’s nonlinear science. Cantor reluctantly eliminated philosophical reasoning from his papers and only at the insistence of his friend Mittag-Leffler, the Editor of Acfu Mathemafica. It was Thomas Kuhn and Paul Feyerabend who dealt a final blow to the superficial mathematical objectivity based on the narrow view of science. They showed how objectivity has to be understood in a global cultural context. This point might be nicely illustrated by the connection between Prigogine’s early fascination with history and the revolution he initiated in irreversible non-equilibrium thermodynamics, another cornerstone of nonlinear science. Similarly, Mitchell Feigenbaum came to universal behavior in nonlinear maps from electrical engineering via nuclear physics. His interest in mathematical physics is rivaled only by his passionate interest in Goethe, Mahfouz and Puccini. In an even wider context, I believe that political science would have looked very different if Toynbee and Spengler had known about the possibility of complete nonperiodicity in a completely deterministic system. It seems that history has made a full rotation. We understand now that returning to interdisciplinary thinking may hold the key to the future. Prigogine among others has contributed essentially to our understanding of this point. Five years ago it seemed that a very high level, scientifically tolerant and wide ranging periodical might help a little in restoring the scientific traditions of people like Da Vinci, Gauss and Poincare. After some delay, that eccentric thought is now reality. I would have liked to have taken the credit for the dedicated work which has made this journal possible. Alas, it is not even remotely so. As a person who worked mainly in engineering design, management and politics, I take a broad and serious interest in nonlinear science and have merely suggested an obvious idea. Almost everything else in the creation of this journal is the work of the numerous members of the Editorial Board: mathematicians, physicists and engineers, who are well known internationally. Some of them are the pioneers who laid the foundation of the subject. I am particularly grateful to Professors P.C. Miller, E. Kreutzer, Y. Ichikawa, G. Casati, G. Schmidt, A. Jeffrey, G. Rega, H. 0. Peitgen, T. Kapitaniak, C. Grebogi and G. Herrmann. The journal would have remained only an idea without the generous support and encouragement given by Professors Sir Herman Bondi, I. Prigogine, B. Chirikov, Y. Ueda, 0. Rossler and Sir Brian Pippard. Lack of space prevents me from mentioning the role of every member of the Editorial Board but to all of them I give my deep and sincere appreciation, especially to my lifelong friend H E Professor S. Al Athel for his unstinting support of the project. The scientific policy of our journal is mainly the responsibility of the Honorary Editors and the regional and associate Editors, who will review this policy from time to n.me as necessary. The Editorial Board on the other hand support and guide the practical business of publishing the journal, refereeing papers and encouraging the submission of manuscripts to the journal.

The journal emphasis is on applications. However, and in accordance with our general philosophy, theoretical, experimental and numerical studies of a fundamental nature will also be encouraged to give a balanced picture of current advances in nonlinear science.

Our publishers have allocated a generous number of pages and are willing to print illustrations in color to enhance the clarity of presentation. The refereeing will be rigorous but rapid and publication will be fast.

In conclusion allow me a few informal words at the risk of appearing facetious. I. Stewart wittily remarked in his delightful book Does God Play Dice? that anyone who thinks in terms of a model stripped to the bare essentials, such as E. Lorenz’s model of climate, becomes a mathematician. Consequently he concluded, chaos was discovered by mathematicians. To that I would like modestly to remark that since H. Poincare, the undisputed first discoverer of chaos, was trained first in engineering, following the Napoleonic traditions, then it follows that chaos was discovered by engineers, a word which derives from ingenuity. At a minimum let us agree that there is room for all sorts of creative thinking, at least in this journal.

I sincerely hope that this will be a truly interdisciplinary journal which is not only useful, applications oriented and informative, but also true to what must be the prime objectives of life, elevating and enjoyable. Judging by the first issue it seems we are well on our way to achieving just that.

M. S. El Naschie"

A.M wrote on Nov. 26, 2008 @ 18:14 GMT
Mohamed El Naschie is the elder brother, teacher and friend of Amr Elnashai, Director of the largest earthquake engineering centre in the USA at Urbana, Champaign. In a special issue of CS&F dedicated to Mohamed’s 60th birthday, Amr wrote a wonderful tribute to his brother entitled Recollections. The El Naschie’s are one of Egypt’s most distinguished and richest families and all three brothers are famous. Said, the middle brother is a famous professor at Pennsylvania State University. Although he has some serious health problems he is a distinguished professor of environmental studies and a world renowned researcher of chaos in chemical engineering. He dedicated two of his books published by Gordon & Breach to Mohamed El Naschie. You should see http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=the-self-organizing-quan
tum-universe and http://www.telegraph.co.uk/scienceandtechnology/science/scie
icists-with-theory-of-everything.html#postComment.

Ray Munroe wrote on Nov. 28, 2008 @ 16:00 GMT
To All,

I think that both Lisi and El Naschie have something to contribute to modern physics, and I have an idea to end these smear campaigns.

I like Lisi’s E8, but consider this a “Minimal Theory of Everything”. If that sounds like an oxymoron to you, it also bothers me. It is clear to me that Lisi’s E8 is incomplete.

El Naschie has written volumes about E-infinity, Cantorian Spacetime, and Alpha Bar Theory. Of course, Eddington invented Alpha Bar Theory before El Naschie’s birth, but El Naschie is still trying to contribute to the idea, and won’t let it die. I can’t criticize that, because I also won’t let Dirac’s Large Numbers Hypothesis die. El Naschie has published so many ideas in so many different places (mostly different articles in “Chaos”) that he or one of his students should consider organizing all of the ideas into one book.

I’m still working on E12. The ideas that I published in my book last May are incomplete, and I know it. Eventually, I will figure out E8, E10, and E12; and finish the job that Lisi started (unless Lisi or someone else finishes it first). Then maybe I can examine the connections between E12 and E-infinity.

My solution to these smear campaigns is as follows: Someone should organize a conference and invite Lisi to talk about E8, invite El Naschie to talk about E-infinity, and invite me to talk about E12. I will gladly take the worst time slot. I understand there are still politics to determine who gets the best time slot – Lisi is probably more popular in America, and El Naschie is probably more popular in Europe and the Middle East.

Personally, I would like to meet both of these men. Give us several days together, and there’s no telling how we’ll shake up modern physics.

Sincerely, Ray Munroe

Kayam wrote on Nov. 29, 2008 @ 16:15 GMT
I remember seeing Barkley Rosser at the Conference in honor of Prof. Tonu Puu in Odense where I also met Mohamed El Naschie who is truly a distinguished gentleman “Un homme distingue” with all its implications. Tonu Puu retired from the University but he did not retire from the Journal. In fact he wrote me a letter, a couple of weeks ago expressing his admiration for the versatility of Chaos, Solitons & Fractals. It is wrong to describe this Journal as a Theoretical Physics Journal. The article in Nature is missing completely the point. But this is really not my concern. I was in blissful ignorance of the low standards which academicians can reach but alas! Now I know of Baez, his n-Category cafe and his crew. What is surprising is that they blocked my comment which was a reply to a comment posted by Rosser because I was supportive of El-Naschie. The trick, as the propaganda Minister of Adolf Hitler put it, is to make a lie so big that people would say even 50% of it is true then it is enough and when it is said so loud and by the mob then it must be true. I can assure you that ninety percent of what is written on this site are half truths and guess which half are they putting? They are connected to a blog known by the name Backreaction and they are coordinating their work very well. They are experts in this business. In the Nature article, the name of John Baez, the originator of all this rambling is conspicuously absent. The valiant brave hero feels more secure behind the bar of his café. His lawyer told him that blogs are difficult to prosecute. The bad news for him is that the loopholes in the international law have been taken care of so he may enjoy it while it lasts. Two or three more weeks make no difference.

A.Kayam

A.Kayam wrote on Nov. 29, 2008 @ 17:17 GMT
Dear Barkley:

We know from Shahriar that you are a decent man and a poet. How on earth can you get entangled with these hooligans of the n-Category café? When Baez found no success in science proper, he turned out to become an internet thug launching campaigns against rich publishers and demanding protection money. This is not the environment that a man like you should be involved in. And why don’t you ask your best friend Tonu Puu what he thinks of Chaos, Solitons and Fractals. He said in writing that this is the most exciting project in his life that he has ever been involved in. And again M. El Naschie did not publish 300 papers, he published over 900 papers. He doesn’t hold the record in publishing in his own journal. The record holder is Prof. Leon Chua from University of Berkeley. His journal is published by World Scientific. The second is Naifeh. His Chaos and Bifurcation Journal was published by Kluwer and now by Springer If every editor in chief who publishes in his journal resigns, we will end up with no publications. But John Baez intention is extortion and obtaining money from Elsevier and other publishers. I must really say he is succeeding and one good thing which might come out of all that maybe the end of commercial publishing and better still the end of learned society publishing. Read the book: Faster than the Speed of Light where Physics Review is referred to as Physics Refuse and he called its Editorial Board the Physics Refuse Mafia. M. El Naschie is guilty of one thing: he is a gentleman who entered a profession where the word gentleman is foreign.

Duncan wrote on Nov. 30, 2008 @ 07:34 GMT
I concur with Philip Davis’ rational analysis of El Naschie’s case. I find the communiqué of the Editorial Board of Chaos, Solitons & Fractals enlightening and revealing. Unlike on other blogs, I am not afraid to say that I am completely persuaded that El Naschie is totally innocent. There is a great deal more here than what meets the eyes. First this campaign, masterminded in the n-Category...

I concur with Philip Davis’ rational analysis of El Naschie’s case. I find the communiqué of the Editorial Board of Chaos, Solitons & Fractals enlightening and revealing. Unlike on other blogs, I am not afraid to say that I am completely persuaded that El Naschie is totally innocent. There is a great deal more here than what meets the eyes. First this campaign, masterminded in the n-Category Café started only when many students and colleagues of El Naschie were appalled by an article written in Scientific American (http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=the-self-organizing-qua
ntum-universe

Duncan wrote on Nov. 30, 2008 @ 07:36 GMT
I concur with Philip Davis’ rational analysis of El Naschie’s case. I find the communiqué of the Editorial Board of Chaos, Solitons & Fractals enlightening and revealing. Unlike on other blogs, I am not afraid to say that I am completely persuaded that El Naschie is totally innocent. There is a great deal more here than what meets the eyes. First this campaign, masterminded in the n-Category...

I concur with Philip Davis’ rational analysis of El Naschie’s case. I find the communiqué of the Editorial Board of Chaos, Solitons & Fractals enlightening and revealing. Unlike on other blogs, I am not afraid to say that I am completely persuaded that El Naschie is totally innocent. There is a great deal more here than what meets the eyes. First this campaign, masterminded in the n-Category Café started only when many students and colleagues of El Naschie were appalled by an article written in Scientific American (http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=the-self-organizing-qua
ntum-universe

Duncan wrote on Nov. 30, 2008 @ 14:58 GMT
To Ray Munroe,

I and the whole science world should thank you sincerely for injecting a true voice of reason. I know others on other sites have intimated such an action of getting people together although I am not sure their comments were allowed to remain.

You are quite right - that is the only honest and fair way to handle scientific differences but then I doubt very much that any of those shouting so loudly here are really interested in scientific differences at all. If only that were the case. This is not a scientific debate at all - it is merely a witch hunt from the big interested parties. Rather like Obabma saying that cetain spending in the US must end even when it is driven by interest groups.

I wish you all the success in the world with having a true scientific debate Ray. You have restored my faith that there are some true science gentlemen left in this muddy academic community.

Josh wrote on Nov. 30, 2008 @ 20:42 GMT
John Baez Esquire, what about Leon Chua? He published far more than El Naschie and Nayfeh combined in his own journal of Bifurcation and Chaos However the owner of World Scientific, the publisher, is your own publisher and friend. Did you sign an agreement with him not to disclose details about Chuas self publishing or have you signed a contract to undermine Chaos, Solitons and Fractals so that World scientific can take its share in the market. I think your behavior is disgraceful and we will make sure that everybody knows really who you are.

Author Kavita Rajanna wrote on Dec. 4, 2008 @ 21:33 GMT
We have moved posts discussing Mohamed El Naschie to this page. (Off-topic posts were moved from An Exceptionally Simple Personal FAQ Blog and Forum, as well as the Pieces of E8 Forum.)

K Rajanna

FQXi

Jan Meyer wrote on Dec. 6, 2008 @ 22:04 GMT
Heavenly justice of the mainsteam club? You probably know Laurent Nottale an exceptionally gifted and very serious French astrophysicist. Laurent is financially almost broke because he worked out the basic principle of fractal spacetime and scale relativity against the resistance of French mainstream physics. But now believe it or not, Dr. Renate Loll of Utrecht University received a prize of 1.25 million euro for publishing the work of Nottale disguised in the form of computer simulation. This happened in academia, not in Palermo. The Dutch authorities should look into this matter. Holland is well known for its accountability. Even the Queen’s father was brought to justice because of the Lockheed affair. I do not think that Utrecht University and the German national Renate Loll should enjoy immunity.

Stephen wrote on Dec. 7, 2008 @ 13:16 GMT
I'd like to point out another instance of inappropriate stealing of the ideas of Nottale, Ord, and El Naschie - and that even for commercial purposes: A company is making profit of Fractal Spacetime under the label of "Global Scaling", without giving any credit at all to its true inventors!

http://globalscalingapplications.com/

http://www.globalscalingtheory.com/

Hans wrote on Dec. 10, 2008 @ 17:31 GMT
Stephen, it is one thing when someone like Hartmut Muller, Ph.D. tries to make a living and someone like Prof. Dr. Renate Loll, the right hand of a Nobel Laureate working in Utrecht, Holland simply took over the work of Laurent Nottale and cash for it 1.25 million euro. If this is how the elite in Europe are behaving then everything is possible and we could not blame the young and the needy for taking shortcuts even when it is on the wild side. It is not only Prof. Renate Loll’s mistake. It must be the entire funding system which is at fault. The case Renate Loll, J. Ambjorn and Jurkeiwicz will haunt us for a while, I am afraid. All this barking created by the n-Category café will not divert from the seriousness of the real situation which forced otherwise regular scientists to fall short of the ethics normally expected from them.

An wrote on Dec. 15, 2008 @ 06:48 GMT
Looking for the numerous amazing articles of El naschie, I found a wonderful one whose title is

“P-Adic analysis and the transfinite E8 exceptional Lie symmetry group unification ”

M.S. El Naschie

King Abdullah Institute for Nano and Advanced Technology, KSU, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia

Volume 38, Issue 3, November 2008, Pages 612-614

Just reading the first sentence in...

Looking for the numerous amazing articles of El naschie, I found a wonderful one whose title is

“P-Adic analysis and the transfinite E8 exceptional Lie symmetry group unification ”

M.S. El Naschie

King Abdullah Institute for Nano and Advanced Technology, KSU, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia

Volume 38, Issue 3, November 2008, Pages 612-614

Just reading the first sentence in the introduction which is

“One of the most amazing results in high energy physics is the T-duality discovered in the context of superstring theories by Witten [1] ”

But, for your surprise, the list of references you find no mention of any reference of Witten.

Reference [1] is just a paper of El naschie himself. Here is list

[1] M.S. El Naschie, A few hints and some theorems about Witten’s M theory and T-duality, Chaos, Solitons & Fractals (2005), pp. 545–548.

01/22/scieinstein122.xml (10/03/2008).

[3] M.S. El Naschie, Transfinite harmonization by taking the dissonance out of the quantum field symphony, Chaos, Solitons & Fractals (2007).

[4] M.S. El Naschie, High energy physics and the standard model from the exceptional Lie groups, Chaos, Solitons & Fractals 36 (2008), pp. 1–17.

[5] M. Kaku, Introduction to superstrings and M-theory, Springer, New York (1999) see p. 385 in particular.

[6] M.S. El Naschie, Infinite dimensional Branes and the E(?) topology of Heterotic super strings, Chaos, Solitons & Fractals 12 (2001), pp. 1047–1055.

“A few hints and some theorems about Witten’s M theory and T-duality” here again we find no reference to any of Witten’s papers . here is list of references of this paper ;

[1] E. Goldfain, Cantorian spacetime and unified field theory, Chaos, Solitons & Fractals 23 (2005), pp. 701–710.

[2] M.S. El Naschie, A review of E-infinity theory and the mass spectrum of high energy physics, Chaos, Solitons & Fractals 19 (2004), pp. 209–236

[3] M.S. El Naschie, Gödel universe, dualities and high energy particles in E-infinity, Chaos, Solitons & Fractals 25 (2005) (3), pp. 759–764.

[4] El Naschie MS. On the cohomology and instantons number in E-infinity Cantorian spacetime. Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, in press doi:10.1016/j.chaos.2005.12.019.

[5] M. Kaku, Strings, conformal fields and M-theory, Springer-Verlag, New York (2000).

[6] A. Khrennikov, Non-Archimedean analysis, Kluwer Academic Publishers, London (1997).

[7] V. Vladimirov, I. Valovich and E. Zelenov, P-Adic analysis and mathematical physics, World Scientific, Singapore (1998).

Something more peculiar about the list of references, of the first paper, is that one of the references is just a comment on an article published in the Telegraph, unfortunately the comment has been deleted. Also the address of the first paper raises another question about the so many false affiliation of El Naschie. The address seems not to be related to his activities.

It is obvious that there is no kind of peer review for these papers even at the fromal level apart from the content.

One can guess that papers may be generated using a program of language generation like n-moles or n-grams or whatever kind of program used. I think, at least for me, that the ‘a b’ of scientific writing should fulfill certain basic criteria:

1- If you mention a paper of Witten (or any name) [], then one should put reference for that person in the square bracket.

2- If you have a paper titled with theory of some one, then the list of references should contain at least one reference for that guy.

I hope, by now, El naschie has a plenty of time to fix the bugs in the program generating papers, implementing these two mentioned rules in the code and acknowledge this blog for drawing his attention.

Volker wrote on Dec. 16, 2008 @ 11:35 GMT
One of the major things which convinces me that this there is a defamation campaign against Prof. Naschie and that the real roots of this campaign lie in his success and the malignant envy which some have as well as the distraction technique employed by those who just plagiarized his work are the following: Why don’t you discuss the real scientific content of the paper if you are capable of? Why do you keep repeating the same old charges again and again with boring repetitiveness? The charges are the same: the references are not perfect and it is obvious there is no peer review. Why is it so obvious? What is obvious is that there is an agenda itched in the souls of those who are tormented with jealousy. Poor souls! How could anyone spend so much time saying so little? There is no doubt that this is a case not for scientific American but for the International Journal of Psychoanalysis. A well meant advice which we said it many times before: Go and see a shrink.

An wrote on Dec. 17, 2008 @ 08:06 GMT
El naschie using his own journal as

a stock for his endless uncountable papers.

Here is, one of his marvelous papers found in Chaos, soltion and fractals.

The title

“On the universality class of all universality classes and E-infinity spacetime physics”

M.S. El Naschie,

King Abdul Aziz City of Science and Technology, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia

Available online 18 October 2006.

Abstract

It is argued that E-infinity theory may represent the universality class of all universality classes of certain discrete dynamical maps which are at the root of relevant field theories. First we give a concise derivation of the basic equations of E-infinity and its ground state. Subsequently it is shown that the independence of the results obtained from the details of any equations of motion or Lagrangian is a clear indication that E-infinity may represent the universality class of all universality classes in the sense of Cantor with regard to relevant quantum field theories.

I’m quite amzed how this could be published.

In fact, for any one who knows little about particle physics realize that the results of any theory depend strongly on the particle content of the theory. For example in QCD, asymptotic freedom depends on the number of colours and flavors. The presence of CP violation in the quark sector depends on the number of generations. No CP violation for one and two generations, at least three generations is required for the presence of CP violation.

An wrote on Dec. 17, 2008 @ 10:14 GMT
To St

It is not important if El naschie is a phd holder or not.

The number of his papers is 350 or 1000 papers is also

immetrial. If one is allowed to write in his style without any

peer review one could publish 6000 papers in twenty years.

The main problems in his papers is they don’t make sense

whatever mathematically or physicaly.

his recent papers is very supicious as it has no relation to his

activities.

On the Ninth International Symposium Frontiers of

Fundamental and Computational Physics 2008 had a lecture titled

“Average exceptional Lie group hierarchy and high

energy physics” where he claimed to be the director of

King Abdullah Al Saud Institute for Nano & Advanced Technologies

as evident from the affiliation mentoined below.

M.S. EL NASCHIE

King Abdullah Al Saud Institute for Nano & Advanced Technologies*,

*) Director

one can check

http://agenda.fisica.uniud.it/difa/getFile.py/access?co
ntribId=52&sessionId=32&resId=0&materialId=slides&confId=9

Bu
t if you check the web page of King Abdullah Al Saud Institute for Nano & Advanced Technologies you don’t find his name listed in the Committee Members of Establishing King Abdullah Institute for NANO Technology and there is no mention for him at all. That

seems odd especially he is the director as he claimed.

One can check the web page for "Committees consultative sciencetisic"

http://www.nano-ksu.com/publish/article_46.shtml

web page for "Supervisory Committee to King Abdullah Institute for Nanotechnology"

http://www.nano-ksu.com/publish/article_63.sh
tml

Can the great man explain for us.

etaki shar wrote on Dec. 18, 2008 @ 11:24 GMT

David Creight wrote on Dec. 18, 2008 @ 16:28 GMT
Said Hamed Elnashaie is a chemical engineer. He is an extremely good Professor and when he is himself an extremely good person. Unfortunately Said is suffering from schizophrenic paranoia. It is a very complex psychological condition and a terrible mental affliction. It is hereditary and no one knows when it would hit and in which generation. There are different forms of this condition. But this is neither the time nor the place to discuss it. I sincerely hope he will overcome it. I am not sure he is really the author of the ridiculous comment signed An. Maybe someone is using him. But Said doesn’t understand anything about high energy physics. The last paragraph of his comment, if not copied blindly from a text book, indicates that the author has some knowledge of particle physics. If this is correct, then he should understand that Mohamed El Naschie was able to find the particle content corresponding to what he called in his set theoretical foundation of E-Infinity the universality of all universal class. The classical particle content of David Gross and his colleagues is 8064 particle like states. In El Naschie transfinite version corresponding to his universality class, revised this figure to 8872. If Said is the writer I don’t think this will make any sense to him. If one of his physicist friends is the writer of the comment, then I also would not think that he will understand because it requires some knowledge of Cantor set theory as well as particle physics. The tragedy is that particle physics on its own could never solve particle physics and particle physicists know nothing except particle physics. To overcome that, you have to be like Mohamed El Naschie – at home both in particle physics and non linear dynamics as well as set theory.

JBrown wrote on Dec. 20, 2008 @ 19:48 GMT
This is a direct answer to Ben Webster, Ph.D. 2007. What I find remarkable that a young researcher who just got his Ph.D. from an Ivy League University, Princeton is writing about a subject completely outside his own expertise. It is true El Naschie uses knot theory among many other things mainly non linear dynamics to model high energy physics. However, you are almost a pure mathematician working in a department of pure mathematics. Therefore you should be critical enough not to commit yourself to such common language and summary judgment belittling people whose work you would never understand without serious studies that will take you at least three years. When will people writing on blogs stop behaving like vandalists smearing the walls of public sanitary facilities with obscene words and pictures. At least this I would have thought is beneath Princeton, dear Webster.

A.B. wrote on Dec. 20, 2008 @ 19:50 GMT
I hope this blog could have sufficient tolerance and a minimum of scientific thinking to accept a dissenting voice. You are pretending as if the most important thing is how many papers a scientist publishes. Any reasonable person, let alone a scientist, knows exactly that the number of papers per se is neither here nor there. Since some people for reasons better known to themselves have used the...

Pavlovich wrote on Dec. 21, 2008 @ 09:59 GMT
Good Lord! I didn’t realize he is from Princeton. Dr. Ben Webster is dragging the good name of Princeton through mud. Is that what he learned from his Professors at Princeton when they have just given him his Ph.D. last year? That explains exactly why I am against all these blogs that are filled with anger and frustration and nothing more. The factual and intellectual content is more often than not zero. Ben, if you start your life this way, you will end up like John Baez or was he your external examiner? Search for other ideals son. I doubt Princeton would take someone from UCR, California to be an external examiner. To be in Princeton is a privilege. Don’t turn into a blog maniac. Leave this business to those who have nothing better to do. This is a well meant advice. You have defamed El Naschie enough to eternalize him as a victim of the blogs. From what I read about him he couldn’t care less about all what you write. It is you who is harming himself. Remember Princeton is a privilege and to receive a writ for defamatory allegation is not looked kindly upon in Princeton.

Boem wrote on Dec. 21, 2008 @ 12:21 GMT
To those responsible for Secret Blogging Seminar Blog, a sub sub sub branch of the n-Category café. You remain faithful to the idea behind your entire net of blogs directed by John Baez. Any dissenting opinion you take off immediately. You are devoted to show process in the style of the Unholy Chinese Cultural Revolution. Your logic is that of the mobs devoted to intimidation. So this is what John Baez calls a one man internet army. At the end you will see that you are no more than Dad’s army only without humor or purpose. You have systematically taken off every single dissenting voice defending Mohamed El Naschie. Your behavior is reminiscent of vicious children and has nothing to do with science or even pseudo conference on scientific publishing. You are a bad joke and when you will receive a court order restraining you and forcing you to pay for your evil deeds, you will stop laughing. You are giving a most miserable example to the youth. You have given the word blogs an infamous name. To try to evoke in you a sense of shame is trying the unfeasible.

KT wrote on Dec. 24, 2008 @ 08:22 GMT
Mohamed El Naschie is a fraud, plain and simple. If he isn't, why list numerous high profile affiliations that have publically stated he has never had anything to do with them? And 300+ questionable papers published in your own journal...? Come on people, open you eyes!

Michalo wrote on Dec. 24, 2008 @ 11:45 GMT
I have tried many times to write the truth as I see it on these blogs mentioned by Boem. No way. Anything positive about El Naschie is immediately removed. John Baez describes himself as a one man internet army. Indeed he was able to construct a spider web of interconnected blogs to magnify his pathetic claims to the extent of intimidating almost any commercial publisher. He is a man with an obvious split personality. In the morning he is Dr. John Jekyl pretending to be a professor. At night he is Mr. John Hyde, an internet thug as aptly described in many previous comments. The whole this is just to distract from the basic facts which are truly disgraceful. For the work of Nottale, Ord and El Naschie Reneta Loll received a prize of 1.25 million euros in addition to 3.5 million euros on fractal spacetime. One should ask why should Renate Loll leave the prestigious Max Planx Inst. to work in a small university in Holland? She said she wanted to work with Nobel laureate Gerrard ‘tHooft. But ‘tHooft does not work with anybody. She answered she just wanted to be near to him. Strangely ‘tHooft is very near to El Naschie in more than one sense. El Naschie’s, Ord and Nottale’s approach is based on indeterministic classical mechanics that is deterministic chaos. Later on ‘tHooft started working on what he termed deterministic quantum mechanics. He published a paper or a discussion on the subject in Physics World which I have read. He did not mention Nottale, Ord or El Naschie. Never the less, I saw a whole issue of Chaos, Solitons & Fractals which was dedicated to Gerrard ‘tHooft’s 60th birthday. In fact the cover of this issue had a very nice picture of ‘tHooft on it and in the Editorial, El Naschie praised ‘tHooft for indirectly supporting the approach pioneered by Nottale, Ord and himself. These are the sober facts. No allegation and no defamation. If you want to discuss El Naschie’s work and why it is right or wrong, there are scientific methods and venues to do so. This character assassination and despicable campaign by the one man internet army, John Baez is what makes me convinced that this is truly a conspiracy. I am equally convinced that at the end, the truth will always prevail.

Donne wrote on Dec. 24, 2008 @ 11:57 GMT
To KT If you name is not Said or John Baez and you are plain simple and truly naïve which I doubt very much, then you should know that all the affiliations of Mohamed El Naschie are correct. He is not only the Principal Adviser of KACST he helped build KACST. He is Adviser to King Saud University on Nanotechnology and was one of the main scientists who put King Saud University on the map 35 years ago. He is a Distinguished Fellow of the University of Frankfurt and there is a signed and sealed affidavit by the Director which will be prayed in the High Court in London to which you are courteously invited. He does not have only 300 papers but almost 900. His Ph.D. in 1974 gives in the references three published papers by him as a student. After nearly three years of obtaining his Ph.D. he already had 50 published papers. Before establishing Chaos, Solitons & Fractals he had already published 200 papers and he was an Editor in many journals including ZAMM, the legendary applied mechanics journal established by von Mieses and Prantel if these famous names mean anything to you. El Naschie did not use Chaos, Solitons Fractals, he created it out of nothing and by publishing in it, he made it famous. El Naschie was a full professor and well know nationally and internationally before Chaos, Solitons & Fractals ever existed. He neither needed funding nor promotion and that is what makes you, Baez and Said eat their hearts. El Naschie did not want to publish papers, he was establishing a field and he did, almost single handedly. There is nothing philistines can do or write that will change this and this ‘Come on people’ is typical for the mad man Said.

Boem

Pm wrote on Dec. 24, 2008 @ 13:35 GMT
I think that Elsevier is doing dirty jobs in scientific publishing. The CSF journal is owned by Elnaschie and Elsevier is getting money out of this apart from the journal subscription fees. El naschie pays for getting credibility of Elsevier and to have the chance to publish his great scientific ideas in journal hosted by a supposed reputable publishing house like Elsevier. There are other many similar cases in Elsevier.

El naschie keeps publishing junks in CSF for a quite long time and kept unnoticed by mentoring system of Elsevier which seems very odd. While it was so obvious from the far beginning that we have a crackpot.

The same applies to Cambridge university which allowed him to publish his articles for nearly ten years 1993-2001 using its affiliation, while, for sure, he wasn’t a staff member there. It is far from reality to imagine that people in Cambridge have been fooled for that long time. According to the following data base

http://www.engineeringvillage2.org

One can find:

17 articles where the affiliation is DAMTP, Cambridge, UK.

72 articles where the affiliation is Dept. of Appl. Math. & Theor. Phys., Cambridge Univ., UK

40 articles where the affiliation is Univ of Cambridge.

No prize for one who guesses at which journal those articles have been published.

It is not enough for Elsevier just to step down Elnaschie , they should explain how these things happened and what their future precautions to prevent such a misusing of editorial power.

On the other side, Cambridge people should explain how it was possible for El naschie to use its affiliation for a quite long time, harming their reputation without charging him and any legal action.

The papers of El naschie would be a permanent black record for both Elsevier and Cambridge for too long time in the future.

Pm wrote on Dec. 24, 2008 @ 14:17 GMT
If El naschie is an honest scientist and not a fraud. He should mention the web link to the institute he claimed to have a position or related to it in his website.

I challenge him to put links which shows his claims and to assure his honesty for the others. Please give links to the following claimed position

1-He is the current advisor of the Egyptian Ministry for Science and Technology (High Energy Physics and Nanotechnology)

2- He is Adviser to King Saud University on Nanotechnology, and even more he claimed to be the director of King Abdullah Al Saud Institute for Nano and Advanced Technologies.

One can check the following link where he claimed to be the director

http://agenda.fisica.uniud.it/difa/getFile.py/access
?contribId=52&sessionId=32&resId=0&materialId=slides&confId=
9

If you check the webpage of of King Abdullah Al Saud Institute for Nano and Advanced Technologies. You find no mention for him at all

One can check the web page for "Committees consultative sciencetisic"

http://www.nano-ksu.com/publish/article_46.shtml

web page for "Supervisory Committee to King Abdullah Institute for Nanotechnology"

http://www.nano-ksu.com/publish/article_63.sh
tml

In fact it reflects badly on these countries if this was true.

Fareed wrote on Dec. 24, 2008 @ 16:31 GMT

Amr wrote on Dec. 27, 2008 @ 15:27 GMT
The internet fetishist Said Hamad paid John Baez defamation incorporated to establish yet another phony blog entitled L’affaire El Naschie. You can write anything you want against Mohamed El Naschie but they will remove immediately anything for him. That is the extent of scientific thinking of the two men mentioned, Said and John Baez the last. On December 22nd 2008 using the pseudo...

The internet fetishist Said Hamad paid John Baez defamation incorporated to establish yet another phony blog entitled L’affaire El Naschie. You can write anything you want against Mohamed El Naschie but they will remove immediately anything for him. That is the extent of scientific thinking of the two men mentioned, Said and John Baez the last. On December 22nd 2008 using the pseudo abbreviation BKG probably a corruption of the KBG, Said’s old ideals as a saloon communist, he wrote some entertaining comments and I will pretend they deserve to be answered. Here are the answers:

I hope this will keep you busy for the rest of the vacation Said. I am sure even John Baez has something better to do, even if it is as a backup for his aunt’s band. That would be far more constructive work than nourishing this ridiculous image of a one man internet thug. Oh sorry, I think he calls it army. Bon Noel and happy new year and may God relieve you from your pains.

Amr

Albert Chen wrote on Dec. 27, 2008 @ 17:30 GMT
The comment by AB is logical. I know very well that the Chinese Academy of Science wants to control all Chinese Scientists. This is the communist party policy. They got an old Professor, Chuo-Bin Lin and a double agent working for Elsevier Charon Duermeijer to establish a journal called Communications in Nonlinear Science and Numerical Simulation. This is not an Elsevier Journal. It is a very weak and old Chinese Journal and they now want to make it the top journal in nonlinear science. However the real reason is the large money revenue coming from translating Chinese articles into English. Elsevier of course doesn’t mind this unethical behavior as long as they make millions of dollars. That is the real story. It is a scandal which will harm all commercial publishing. I know from friends working in China with Professor Mohamed El Naschie that he was against this project. I guess his enemies conspired with Elsevier to get rid of him.

Albert Chen

Cardenas wrote on Dec. 27, 2008 @ 17:47 GMT
All Editors in Chief publish in their own Journals. This is completely normal. How much one publishes is a matter of ability. Therefore what you should discuss is the scientific quality of the publications. Reading the defamation written against Mohamed El Naschie, it is clear that no scientific issue whatsoever was considered. I am sure that those writing on this subject are completely incapable of a rational scientific discussion. Internet blogs are known for sensational news and scandals. They live from media frenzy. This is not the place to discuss science.

Al Cardenas

Adel wrote on Dec. 27, 2008 @ 21:39 GMT
The power of the almighty chance brought me to this site. I know both Mohamed and Said. It is truly an incredible irony because Said Salah El Din Hamed Elnashaie is the one who can write papers quicker than he himself could read them. I am a chemical engineer just like Said. I was the Dean of Engineering in a north Canadian University. I arranged for a conference on mathematical modeling and chemical engineering. This was maybe fifteen or more years ago. We received one paper from Prof. Mohamed El Naschie and if I remember correctly, it was on the stability of chemical reactors using Rene Thom’s catastrophe theory. We also had a contribution from Prof. Said. Believe it or not, he contributed 24 papers to one conference. He had a whole army of co-authors. Almost the entire department of chemical engineering in King Saud University of Saudi Arabia. What can we understand from that? I think one thing – Egyptians are extremely peculiar creations of the Almighty. I am not drawing this conclusion from the scientific output of Mohamed and Said alone. Look at the pyramids. Who on earth could put so many stones on top of each other to create a wonder of the world? Taking it at its face value, the Egyptian’s are marvelous pyramid builders. They could use it as an export article to enhance their collapsing economy once they have solved the transportation problem. Egypt has some of the worst, if not the worst economical problems of whole Africa. I said Africa you notice. You can no longer compare Egypt with its Arab brothers. It is at the bottom. Gone are the days where Egypt could be considered culturally part of the Mediterranean. They are a shadow of their own old self. Amidst all this misery and one of the lowest per capita incomes in the world, you read all these bizarre stories and contrived arguments about who publishes what and how much. If the Egyptians and their friends are evaluating scientific production by numbers of papers, why not go all the way and evaluate it by the number of pages. I have even a better Egyptian idea – why not evaluate the Egyptian scientific output by weighing the papers in the bazaar and may the heaviest win! I think in this case the Egyptians will abandon write on papyrus and type their research on heavy leather of Nile buffalos or crocodiles. I am sure you have all felt my contempt by now to this oriental bazaar which the supporters of Mohamed and Said and John Baez and the rest of you have opened here on a respectable scientific site. People are dying in Gaza, Israel, Iraq, Afghanistan and a ravaging economical disaster is looming on the horizon for the entire world and some silly idiots are concerned here mainly with how many papers have been published in this dam Fractals, Solitons & Chaos. Now I am sure you think I am an Israelite. Wrong – I am Egyptian and that is why I find the whole thing ranging from tragic to comedy. I hope God will restore the sanity of the people involved.

J.T. wrote on Dec. 28, 2008 @ 16:40 GMT
During my years in Cambridge I attended one of those unforgettable lectures by Prof. Sir Arthur Stanly Eddington. In his characteristic prose Eddington gave the following definition for what he nicknamed super mathematics. He said: We need a super mathematics in which the operations are as unknown as the quantities they operate on and a super mathematician who does not know what he is doing when he performs these operations. Such a super mathematics is the theory of groups. Sir Eddington’s lecture was reprinted in the fifties but I forget where. I was reminded of all that after what I read about Mohamed El Naschie’s work on this and other sites. It seems to me that El Naschie completed what Eddington started but could not bring it to a satisfactory conclusion. El Naschie fused two subjects to a solid unit. First he used causal partially ordered set theory and transfinite groups. Then he joined his sets to the golden mean number system and transfinite dimension theory. The result was a simple computational partially ordered set formalism reminiscent of the original Herman Wyle gauge theory. It would be helpful if we put the polemic and unconstructive rhetoric aside and concentrate upon the mathematical concepts implicit in El Naschie’s work with the necessary objectivity and seriousness befitting true scientists.

J.T., Oxbridge

SR wrote on Dec. 31, 2008 @ 16:41 GMT
There is another site connected to the spider web of John Baez and his accomplices. I am sure you remember him. He is the man who proves mathematical theorems using Apache techniques, namely where there is smoke there is fire. The site is called Ars Technica. One particularlz idiotic author is a pompous Chris Lee. He likes you to think of him as a Chinese with a Christian name. In reality you guessed it, he is John Baez, self appointed jack of all sciences, master of none. The amazing this is how these internet holigans got hold of Nature. The method is simple. You create a great deal of noise and smoke on the internet. Second using your students you inform a serious journal like Nature via unscrupulous little journals. Once Nature publishes it, you feed it back to the internet. Subsequently you are paid either by an international publisher or those who obtained prizes in the millions by plagarizing work which they rejected by the main stream journals only to publish it themselves under different labels and appropriate decorations. One day the internet will be accrdited with destoying science and integrity as we used to know them.

KK wrote on Jan. 3, 2009 @ 14:54 GMT
Believe it or not

El naschie had four articles whose titles containing Witten. The articles are

1- A few hints and some theorems about Witten’s M theory and T-duality,

Chaos,Solitons and Fractals 25 (2005)545 –548

2- Using Witten’s five Brane theory and the holographic principle to derive the value of the electromagnetic structure constant alpha =1/137,

Chaos,Solitons and Fractals 38 (2008)1051 –1053

3- Fuzzy knot theory interpretation of Yang –Mills instantons and Witten’s 5-Brane model,

Chaos,Solitons and Fractals 38 (2008)1349 –1354

4- On the Witten –Duff Branes model together with knots theory and E 8 E 8 super strings in a single fractal spacetime theory,

Chaos, Solitons and Fractals xxx (2008)xxx –xxx . The article is still in press, but you can get the pdf. file.

The amazing thing about the references of the first three articles is that they don’t contain any research paper for Witten. Finally, the great man realized his mistake and put a reference for Witten in the fourth one (the most recent one). But the man didn’t acknowledge who pointed out to him this bug in his program which he used to generate papers (Backreaction blog). Any way this a good step, at least the references are now correctly produced. Unfortunately you still need further improvement in your code that seems has a serious problem with E. Witten. Although you referred to a paper of Witten the program has produced a wrong title for it. In the references list we find

[4 ]Witten E. Searching for a realistic Kaluza-Klein Theory. Nucl Phys B 1981;186:412 –28.

While the correct title turned out to be, as you can check yourself:

Search for a realistic Kaluza-Klein theory

Nuclear Physics B, Volume 186, Issue 3, 10 August 1981, Pages 412-428, Edward Witten

As N. Eisfeld wrote on Mar. 26, 2008 @ 18:32 GMT, in this blog describing El naschie

"This man has never bad-mouthed, ignored or downplayed anyone or any contribution. He also acknowledged every single person who contributed to his work unless he genuinely did not know and then he will immediately apologize of the unintended omission."

T. Hilal wrote on Jan. 5, 2009 @ 12:35 GMT
To KK alias Said Elnashaie alias John Brunt alias S. Khalil alias AlArabi alias the Sons of Egypt etc, etc, etc. compliments of the King and I.

It is truly amazing how much triviality people who profess to be scientists can harbor. The above mentioned person has inundated us with dozens of trivial analyses of the literature. It is the same person who hates El Naschie for nothing more than that he hijacked the media for five years. Personal envy and inferiority complexes on the rocks, thick, neither shaken nor stirred. Poor soul. Can’t you for once say something important? You are killing yourself searching for anything you can comprehend from the work of El Naschie and all that you can come with is these pathetic statistics of the literature. OK. Let me free you from your illusions, if something of the sort is possible at all.

1. I have seen you and I know Mohamed El Naschie. The reason he hijacked the media is not

connected to his theory nor the width and depth of his knowledge and his intellectuality. It is mainly because of the attractiveness of his personality, stemming from living in harmony with himself. In old age you get the face you deserve and I am afraid a man full of bitterness and hatred like yourself does not and will never have a face appealing to the media. What are you going to do about that? There is no beauty salon or cosmetic surgeon who can change the soul which projects on your face.

2. For a high energy physicist the name Witten as well as his 5-Brane in 11 dimensions is as well known as the name of Isaac Newton. When you write a paper on classical mechanics and mention the name of Newton being synonymous with classical mechanics, you do not give Principia as a reference. There is not a single person who would make such a remark as yours unless he is totally ignorant or blinded by hatred. What El Naschie has forgotten about the literature in high energy physics, a man like you could spend a life time trying to learn and not achieve. Said you have disgraced yourself, disgraced your family and disgraced Egypt. You are becoming a parasite and a fearful virus. We are all afraid of you. But this does not make you respectable. Everybody is afraid of microbes and viruses but that does not make them respectable. I think the best punishment for you is to wish you longevity of life so that you can suffer from your unattractive character as long as possible.

Jimmy Hs wrote on Jan. 10, 2009 @ 13:01 GMT
It seems that the great man (El Naschie) is illiterate in physics, you can look at the spires data base for High energy physics literature you will find 124 articles titled with Witten and all of them contain references for Witten’s work except yours that even have strange tiltes. Please look at...

It seems that the great man (El Naschie) is illiterate in physics, you can look at the spires data base for High energy physics literature you will find 124 articles titled with Witten and all of them contain references for Witten’s work except yours that even have strange tiltes. Please look at http://www.slac.stanford.edu/spires/find/hep/www?rawcmd=FIND
+T+witten%27s&FORMAT=www&SEQUENCE=

The works of Witten are not standard or so popular as you think. It is not the same status as classical mechanics which we have since three hundred years and is a well established discipline.

I brought you another surprise , here I just quote from the n-category group, which has been Posted by: Denis-Charles Cisinski on November 11, 2008

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

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

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

and

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

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

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

I am just amazed.”

Till here the quotation is ended and just we present a simple explanation. It is well known in producing random numbers by computer codes, the produced numbers are not truly random and are called pseudo random numbers, at the best they satisfy some certain characteristic properties of randomness. If the programs is used for long it could reproduce the same numbers with clearly wrong statistical properties. The same phenomena occurs in producing pseudo science, if you are using a not well tested program for generating papers , the same paper can be produced two times and that was the case for El naschie. Since El naschie is so transparent in everything, he published the same article two times in his own journal, although it was clear that the code he used was broken too early. Who else would dare to publish the same article two times in the same journal. That is exactly what El Naschie did in his 1993 paper On “ On dimensions of Cantor set related system, Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, Vol 3, no. 6 (1993)” and “Dimension and Cantor spectra, Chaos Solitons and Fractals, Vol. 4, no. 11 (1994)”.

In fact, this is just a statistical analysis of the El Naschie’s papers that are really chaotic with no contents and superficially seeming complex but trivially could be produced by iterating some few buzz words.

Maybe the great man could provide us with a more interesting explanation.

RF wrote on Jan. 11, 2009 @ 12:57 GMT
Dear Jimmy Hs, You might be even more amazed to know that Elsevier have published my own paper twice. They did that without even asking me. I was happy to see my paper in print then two months later I found the same paper printed again. When I made a fuss and complained they told me this is a frequent mistake because of on line submissions and automisation. When you dig you find this is not true. It is out sourcing. They are searching for cheap and cheaper ways of typesetting their journals. Some of the typesetters do not even speak English. It is really rediculous. None the less Elsevier remains the best among commercial publishers. This does not answer your comment. However I think you are making too much out of numbers of published papers. The number of published papers is in my view neither here nor there and could not be taken as an indication for the quality or lack of it. There are people who tend to be prolific. Other people tend to republish the same work several times, albeit with some modifications. Witten is one of those but there are less important scientists who are exactly the same. El Naschie tends to publish very short papers. It seems to me that he concentrates on ideas which is why he can write so many papers. There are people who cut a work into many small papers in order to get promotion and fulfil the quota required by their respective University Board for promotion. That I find far worse than publishing the same paper many times. Either way, I do not care. What I find important is the content of a paper and this is another story altogether.

GE wrote on Jan. 11, 2009 @ 13:29 GMT

Khan wrote on Jan. 12, 2009 @ 19:45 GMT
I agree that Mohamed El Naschie was trying to provoke the establishment into a scientific dialogue. You see that clearly from many of his papers which carry the names of famous scientists in their title. It is as if he is trying to address them directly. Take for instance Penrose universe and Cantorian spacetime as a model for noncommutative quantum geometry. This is a very informative short...

Conrad K wrote on Jan. 13, 2009 @ 23:24 GMT
I was hit by a totally idiotic contradictory expression describing Mohamed El Naschie’s theory as a Cantorian continuum. OK. The writer was one of those pretentious journalists flattering themselves by pretending to be science writers. His name was Christopher or something similar which is not important. What is important is that a Cantor space can never be continuous. It is manifestly...

An wrote on Jan. 19, 2009 @ 12:14 GMT
The objections on the works of El naschie don't stem from his claimed prolific character, but relies on the quality of his works that tends to be very poor. El naschie is using the idea of fractal geometry and non linear dynamics in a very vague way, in this vague way of reasoning and thinking you can claim to have proved any thing. Even it is

very decent to say that his works are wrong,...

The objections on the works of El naschie don't stem from his claimed prolific character, but relies on the quality of his works that tends to be very poor. El naschie is using the idea of fractal geometry and non linear dynamics in a very vague way, in this vague way of reasoning and thinking you can claim to have proved any thing. Even it is

very decent to say that his works are wrong, they are not even wrong ( as Pauli once evaluated one's work!)

Here I just give examples for two great scientists that happened to be extreme examples of prolificity.

The first one is Leonhard Euler, who was by far the most productive mathematician in the history of humankind and one of the greatest scholars of all time. His collected works filled 70 volumes, with a typical volume runs to 500 large pages and weighs about four pounds. Publishing

Euler's collected works started in 1911 under the title Opera Omina and is not yet finished.

Series I Opera mathematica

(In 29 volumes; 30 volume-parts)

Available complete

Series II Opera mechanica et astronomica

(In 31 volumes; 32 volume-parts)

Series III Opera physica, Miscellanea

(In 12 volumes)

Series IV A. Commercium epistolicum

(10 Volumes)

for more details you can see the following links

http://www.leonhard-euler.ch

http://www.springer.com/bir
khauser/historyofscience?SGWID=0-40295-2-121672-0

The second example is Peter Higss who is the inventor of Higgs mechanism to which the Higgs particle is related. Peter Higss published only 12 articles in his life career, please see

http://www.slac.stanford.edu/spires/find/hep/www?rawcmd=a
+Higgs,+Peter

You will also find 8000 papers containing Higgs in their titles. Please

see

http://www.slac.stanford.edu/spires/find/hep/www?ra
wcmd=find+title+higgs&FORMAT=WWW&SEQUENCE=

I doubt if the work of El naschie could fill one volume. The great man is concentrating on ideas, so his papers are typically short. Nor you can find a single good paper in his entire works.

Nevertheless, El naschie succeeded to have people trumpeting the virtue of his great theory and writing articles containing his name in their titles and out of contexts but exclusively published on his own journal. Here I give few examples for an author called M. Agop who is trumpeting the virtue E-Infinity theory, he has almost thirty nine articles containing in their titles El naschie.

1- El Naschie’s E-infinity theory and effects of nanoparticle clustering on the heat transport in nanofluids

Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, Volume 37, Issue 5, September 2008, Pages 1269-1278

M. Agop, V. Paun, Anca Harabagiu

Abstract:

Effects of nanoparticle clustering on the heat transfer in nanofluids using the scale relativity theory in the topological dimension DT = 3 are analyzed. In the one-dimensional differentiable case, the clustering morphogenesis process is achieved by cnoidal oscillation modes of the speed field. In such conjecture, a non-autonomous regime implies a relation between the radius and growth speed of the cluster while, a quasi-autonomous

regime requires El Naschie’s E-infinity theory through the cluster–cluster coherence (El Naschie global coherence). Moreover, these two regimes are separated by the golden mean. In the one-dimensional non-differentiable case, the fractal kink spontaneously breaks the ‘vacuum symmetry’ of the fluid by tunneling and generates coherent structures.

This mechanism is similar to the one of superconductivity. Thus, the fractal potential acts as an energy accumulator while, the fractal soliton, implies El Naschie’s E infinity theory (El Naschie local coherence). Since all the properties of the speed field are transferred

to the thermal one, for a certain conditions of an external load (e.g. for a certain value of thermal gradient) the soliton and fractal one breaks down (blows up) and release energy. As result, the thermal conductibility in nanofluids unexpectedly increases.

Here, El Naschie’s E-infinity theory interferes through El Naschie global and local coherences.

2- El Naschie’s structures in the electrodynamics of polarizable media

Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, Volume 24, Issue 5, June 2005, Pages 1165-1181

M. Agop, I. Merches, V. Enache

Abstract:

Using the concept of ‘combined field’, an electrodynamics of polarizable media on a fractal space–time is constructed. In this context, using the scale relativity theory, the permanent electric moment, the induced electric moment, the vacuum fluctuations, the paraelectrics, the diaelectrics, the electric Zeeman-type effect, the electric Einstein–de Haas-type effect,

the electric Aharonov–Bohm-type effect, the superconductors in the ‘combined field’, the double

layers as coherent structures, the magnetic Aharonov–Casher-type effect, are analyzed. Correspondence with the E-infinity space–time is accomplished either by admitting an anomal electric Zeeman-type effect, or through a fractal string as in the case of a superconductor in‘combined field’, or, by phase coherence of the electron–ion pairs from the electric double layers (El Naschie’s coherence). Moreover, the electric double layer or

multiple layer may be considered as two-dimensional projections of the same El Naschie’s fractal

strings (higher-dimensional strings in E-infinty space–time).

The reader should be careful about the new concepts of El Naschie global and local

coherences and the ability of E-infinity for explaining every thing you can imagine. I advice every readers to give a look at this author Agop

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleListURL&
_method=list&_ArticleListID=854751840&

view=c&_acct=C00005022
1&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=57e20c10dbdce6aebb
bc81f36416a702

His articles are really endless kind of joy and great virtue of entertaining as the articles

of El naschie himself. Elseiver could distribute these articles as jokes and I bet that they

would be more profitable than distributing them as scientific papers.

An wrote on Jan. 24, 2009 @ 06:30 GMT
The objections on the works of El naschie don't stem from his claimed prolific character, but relies on the quality of his works that tends to be very poor. El naschie is using the idea of fractal geometry and non linear dynamics in a very vague way, in this vague way of reasoning and thinking you can claim to have proved any thing. Even it is

very decent to say that his works are wrong,...

The objections on the works of El naschie don't stem from his claimed prolific character, but relies on the quality of his works that tends to be very poor. El naschie is using the idea of fractal geometry and non linear dynamics in a very vague way, in this vague way of reasoning and thinking you can claim to have proved any thing. Even it is

very decent to say that his works are wrong, they are not even wrong ( as Pauli once evaluated one's work!)

Here I just give examples for two great scientists that happened to be extreme examples of prolificity.

The first one is Leonhard Euler, who was by far the most productive mathematician in the history of humankind and one of the greatest scholars of all time. His collected works filled 70 volumes, with a typical volume runs to 500 large pages and weighs about four pounds. Publishing

Euler's collected works started in 1911 under the title Opera Omina and is not yet finished.

Series I Opera mathematica

(In 29 volumes; 30 volume-parts)

Available complete

Series II Opera mechanica et astronomica

(In 31 volumes; 32 volume-parts)

Series III Opera physica, Miscellanea

(In 12 volumes)

Series IV A. Commercium epistolicum

(10 Volumes)

for more details you can see the following links

http://www.leonhard-euler.ch

http://www.springer.com/bir
khauser/historyofscience?SGWID=0-40295-2-121672-0

The second example is Peter Higss who is the inventor of Higgs mechanism to which the Higgs particle is related. Peter Higss published only 12 articles in his life career, please see

http://www.slac.stanford.edu/spires/find/hep/www?rawcmd=a
+Higgs,+Peter

You will also find 8000 papers containing Higgs in their titles. Please see

http://www.slac.stanford.edu/spires/find/hep/www?rawcmd=f
ind+title+higgs&FORMAT=WWW&SEQUENCE=

I doubt if the work of El naschie could fill one volume. The great man is concentrating on ideas, so his papers are typically short. Nor you can find a single good paper in his entire works.

Nevertheless, El naschie succeeded to have people trumpeting the virtue of his great theory and writing articles containing his name in their titles and out of contexts but exclusively published on his own journal.

Here I give few examples for an author called M. Agop who is trumpeting the virtue E-Infinity theory, he has almost thirty nine articles containing in their titles El naschie.

1- El Naschie s E-infinity theory and effects of nanoparticle clustering on the heat transport in nanofluids

Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, Volume 37, Issue 5, September 2008, Pages 1269-1278

M. Agop, V. Paun, Anca Harabagiu

Abstract:

Effects of nanoparticle clustering on the heat transfer in nanofluids using the scale relativity theory in the topological dimension DT = 3 are analyzed. In the one-dimensional differentiable case, the clustering morphogenesis process is achieved by cnoidal oscillation modes of the speed field. In such conjecture, a non-autonomous regime implies a relation between the radius and growth speed of the cluster while, a quasi-autonomous

regime requires El Naschie s E-infinity theory through the cluster cluster coherence (El Naschie global coherence). Moreover, these two regimes are separated by the golden mean. In the one-dimensional non-differentiable case, the fractal kink spontaneously breaks the vacuum symmetry of the fluid by tunneling and generates coherent structures.

This mechanism is similar to the one of superconductivity. Thus, the fractal potential acts as an energy accumulator while, the fractal soliton, implies El Naschi's E-infinity theory (El Naschie local coherence). Since all the properties of the speed field are transferred to the thermal one, for a certain conditions of an external load (e.g. for a certain value of thermal gradient) the soliton and fractal one breaks down (blows up) and release energy.

As result, the thermal conductibility in nanofluids unexpectedly increases. Here, El Naschie's E-infinity theory interferes through El Naschie global and local coherences.

2- El Naschie's structures in the electrodynamics of polarizable media

Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, Volume 24, Issue 5, June 2005, Pages 1165-1181

M. Agop, I. Merches, V. Enache

Abstract:

Using the concept of combined fields, an electrodynamics of polarizable media on a fractal space-time is constructed. In this context, using the scale relativity theory, the permanent electric moment, the induced electric moment, the vacuum fluctuations, the paraelectrics, the diaelectrics, the electric Zeeman-type effect, the electric Einstein-de Haas-type effect,

the electric Aharonov-Bohm-type effect, the superconductors in the combined fields, the double

layers as coherent structures, the magnetic Aharonov-Casher-type effect, are analyzed. Correspondence with the E-infinity space-time is accomplished either by admitting an anomal electric Zeeman-type effect, or through a fractal string as in the case of a superconductor in combined fields, or, by phase coherence of the electron's ion pairs from the electric double layers (El Naschi' s coherence). Moreover, the electric double layer or

multiple layer may be considered as two-dimensional projections of the same El Naschie's fractal strings (higher-dimensional strings in E-infinty space-time).

Please the reader should be careful about the new concepts of El Naschie global and local coherences and the ability of E-infinity for explaining every thing you can imagine. I advice every readers to give a look at this author Agop

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleListURL&
_method=list&_ArticleListID=854751840&

view=c&_acct=C00005022
1&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=57e20c10dbdce6aebb
bc81f36416a702

His articles are really endless kind of joy and great virtue of entertaining as the articles of El naschie himself. Elseiver could distribute these articles as jokes and I bet that they would be more profitable than distributing them as scientific papers.

HH wrote on Jan. 25, 2009 @ 10:16 GMT
It seems that the great man (El Naschie) is illiterate in physics, you can look at the spires data base for High energy physics literature you will find 124 articles titled with Witten and all of them contain references for Witten's work except yours that even have strange tiltes. Please look at...

It seems that the great man (El Naschie) is illiterate in physics, you can look at the spires data base for High energy physics literature you will find 124 articles titled with Witten and all of them contain references for Witten's work except yours that even have strange tiltes. Please look at http://www.slac.stanford.edu/spires/find/hep/www?rawcmd=FIND
+T+witten%27s&FORMAT=www&SEQUENCE=

The works of Witten are not standard or so popular as you think. It is not the same status as classical mechanics which we have since three hundred years and is a well established discipline.

I brought you another surprise , here I just quote from the n-category group, which has been Posted by: Denis-Charles Cisinski on November 11, 2008

"After discovering the existence of this ignored genius through this discussion, I couldn]t resist and had a look at his work (I am so blessed by providence that my library paid Elsevier enough to give me access on line to all of this wonderful journal: Chaos, Solitons & Fractals8

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

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

and

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

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

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

I am just amazed.
"

Till here the quotation is ended and just we present a simple explanation. It is well known in producing random numbers by computer codes, the produced numbers are not truly random and are called pseudo random numbers, at the best they satisfy some certain characteristic properties of randomness. If the programs is used for long it could reproduce the same numbers with clearly wrong statistical properties. The same phenomena occurs in producing pseudo science, if you are using a not well tested program for generating papers , the same paper can be produced two times and that was the case for El naschie. Since El naschie is so transparent in everything, he published the same article two times in his own journal, although it was clear that the code he used was broken too early. Who else would dare to publish the same article two times in the same journal. That is exactly what El Naschie did in his 1993 paper On ? dimensions of Cantor set related system, Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, Vol 3, no. 6 (1993) and Dimension and Cantor spectra, Chaos Solitons and Fractals, Vol. 4, no. 11 (1994).

In fact, this is just a statistical analysis of the El Naschie's papers that are really chaotic with no contents and superficially seeming complex but trivially could be produced by iterating some few buzz words.

Maybe the great man could provide us with a more interesting explanation.

Anonymous wrote on Jan. 29, 2009 @ 22:46 GMT
“Said, how about signing with your own name. You are a big guy. Show the world you are really a man. You can be impotent and you can be incompetent but still you can pretend to be a man”.

Anonymous wrote on Jan. 29, 2009 @ 22:47 GMT
• Said, all of Egypt knows you are a thief. All of Egypt knows the real story. All of Egypt, except the thieves, knows how kind Mohamed is and in all your miserable mad existence nobody was kinder to you than him. I always warned him against you because I knew how evil you are. You did harm Mohamed for sure. The day he shook hands with you was a bad day for him. You have my word, he will recover from all this filth you have been spreading around him and for sure you have made his theory more famous than it was and that you will regret it as well. Mohamed never needed to kiss the hand of the Director of a private University in the Middle East to get employed but you do so everyday and with increasing frequency. You will hear them tell you that it is not your research record or the fact you have never really found anything of value in science or otherwise but it is your character - A man who steals his own mother and breaks her heart and lets her die penniless is a not a human being and we employ normal human beings. So rest assured that your co-criminals will be the ones who will first denounce you in the court of justice. It is only a matter of weeks and what you have done will backfire at you and the cheap journalist you have bribed with the money you have stolen from your mother.

Laurel and Hardy wrote on Jan. 30, 2009 @ 11:04 GMT
John Baez: Bad news. The fraud squad is closing in. They are busy right now in Davos. But your ingenuity has drawn their attention. Why aren’t you signing with your name lately? Nobody doubts your ability to get out of the fine mess which Stanley got you into.
[Maybe this is what frightened Baez. --Ed]

William Tell wrote on Jan. 30, 2009 @ 11:07 GMT
I have a present to the readers of Scientific American -- A belated Christmas gift. Please log in to Renate Loll’s website to see her in all of her glory holding Einstein in the palm of her hand: http://www.phys.uu.nl/~loll/Web/title/title.html It reminds me of the great poem by William Blake, only upside down.

Frederich Engels wrote on Jan. 30, 2009 @ 11:07 GMT
John Baez,the fraudster: Nobody ever doubted your ability to raise an army of internet hooligans or with one telephone call you get the scum of all science journalists and all unemployed science journalists as well to dance to your whistle. The unfortunate old diploma mathematician of Die Zeit is one of them. You have to find a way to rescue him because he is facing imprisonment and we promise you as soon as this is done, we will have all the time in the world for Riverside, California. All these little tricks of yours will come to haunt you. But then: “Scum of the world unite, you have nothing to lose except your chains”. Was that Said Elnashaie or Karl Marx?

Anonymous wrote on Jan. 30, 2009 @ 11:09 GMT
Most of you who have read all this nonsense wonder what it is all about. Who is Prof. Said and who is Prof. An and all that. Well here is the CV of Prof. An. I am afraid it is only a certificate of conviction but at least you can guess what is behind this nauseating campaign instead of what is essentially a scientific debate. Prof. An is Prof. Said Elnashaie who invested in the one man internet army of John Baez. Please log into the following where you will find English and Arabic explanations. (LINKS) I think the case of John Baez, Renate Loll and their associates is now ripe to go to the State Prosecution of their respective countries. I understand they are now threatening to launch another defamatory article in Scientific American. We take this very seriously and why not? The sooner the full truth will come out, the better and that is all that we aspire to.

A happy Boltzman wrote on Jan. 30, 2009 @ 11:14 GMT
To Loll, Amjbjorn and Jurkiewicz: I did not know that you need money that badly. If so why wait until Mohamed El Naschie commits suicide because he will not. Why not help it a little. Come on guys. You are an inventive lot. Arrange for his physical liquidation. That can’t be beyond you. From all what I have seen from your photographs you have far more reason to be unhappy with your existence. Mohamed El Naschie does science for fun. By contrast you have to beg, steal and borrow to buy things. Remember the New Seekers. From your pictures you look more like the Old Seekers, particularly the charming picture of Loll besides Wheeler’s foam. Boy, I’d rather marry the foam!

Gm wrote on Feb. 4, 2009 @ 15:31 GMT
In one of his numerous fascinating articles which

he dedicated to Gerardus tHooft and titled "On quarks confinement and asymptotic freedom"

(Chaos,Solitons and Fractals 37 (2008)1289–1291)

The great man El naschie gave a new miraculous explanation

for confinement. But unfortunately the great man doesn't

know enough physics, nor enough math, to get into...

In one of his numerous fascinating articles which

he dedicated to Gerardus tHooft and titled "On quarks confinement and asymptotic freedom"

(Chaos,Solitons and Fractals 37 (2008)1289–1291)

The great man El naschie gave a new miraculous explanation

for confinement. But unfortunately the great man doesn't

know enough physics, nor enough math, to get into such

a deep topic.
The man has clearly a big confusion between the number

of flavors and number of generations. According to him

page 1290 "...This term appear as 33 –2 f where f is the number of

fermion-anti fermion loops considered...." where the great man

meant the one loop beta function. In the same page one finds

the expression of the one loop beta function b= 33- 2 N_f/12 Pi

" .... For a number of generation equal to that of the standard

model,namely N_f =3 one .nds b =0.716197....". But to the knowledge of El Naschie

N_f should be interpreted as the number of flavors not the number of generations.

Maybe the great man can check this in any standard textbook on the subject

or the one he used which is the first reference listed at the end of

his article.

Another extraordinary achievement of El Naschie is his freshman

explanation for the confinement phenomenon.

In page 1291, the great man gave us his magic explanation for

confinement "... We cannot see quarks for the same reason that we

cannot see real water at +300 degree centigrade or - 30 degree

centigrade. In both cases we can see vapor or ice and we know it was

water but we cannot see water......"

Let me ask the great man a technical question, if your approach is

a non-perturbative and can cope only with the one loop expression of

beta function. What about the other contributions to beta function

namely two loop, three loop and four loop do you interpret them as

Trans-infinite corrections. To your knowledge the four loop

correction to beta function appeared in 1997, which means you

can not find it in the old edition of your first reference

Yndurain FJ.The theory of quark and gluon interaction.Berlin:Springer;1992.

By now there is the fourth edition 2006, and you can give a look at.

The astonishing thing is that El Naschie uses just very elementary math operations like addition,

subtraction, multiplication and division. Maybe in this particular

paper he was a little more advanced and used the logarithm. That is

just a pedagogical trick to make dummy people understand. On the

top of all these, El Naschie explains low energy phenomena(

relatively) using Planck scale language (let us not say physics!).

Now, let us ask the following interesting question: if the great man El

laureate), then what has Gerardus tHoof dedicated to him?

Although the question seems difficult, tHooft has made it easier for us. In his webpage

tHooft gave an account of How to Become Bad theoretical

Physicists.(http://www.phys.uu.nl/~thooft/theoris

of course dedicated to every successful case. tHooft did not

mention any name but El Naschie can easily recognize himself as a

champion of this webpage.

At last, we argue the great man to devote part of his time to

learn proper math and physics (although it is toooo late now!).

Sciences and knowledge is not about using

English in a pedantic and impressive way. One can still do good science

even with broken English but not with broken and sick mind.

Gm wrote on Feb. 4, 2009 @ 15:32 GMT
In this concluding comment, I am going to show in a rigorous

mathematical language that El Nashie is isomorphic to a "Bad

Theoretical Physicist" according to tHoof definition and criteria .

Thooft criteria are:

1-It is much easier to become a bad theoretical physicist than a good one.

I know of many...

In this concluding comment, I am going to show in a rigorous

mathematical language that El Nashie is isomorphic to a "Bad

Theoretical Physicist" according to tHoof definition and criteria .

Thooft criteria are:

1-It is much easier to become a bad theoretical physicist than a good one.

I know of many individual success stories.

El- For sure El Naschie is one of those stories.

2- Compare yourself with Isaac Newton, Albert Einstein, Paul

Dirac.

El- This happened in many occasions. In his 60th

birthday celebration in China one reads in the preface of the

proceeding dedicated to him the following:

“Our Chinese Scientists on Nonlinear Dynamics are in infinite love

and admiration to both the man and his science.”

“Treading the path of El Naschie, we gather together to celebrate

the century’s greatest scientist after Newton and Einstein,

and share his greatest achievement.”

One can find more on the following link: www.ijnsns.com/conf/China1.doc

3- You may consider the option of connecting your work with mystery

topics such as telepathy and consciousness.

EL- This is one of El Naschie' papers.

The brain and E-Infinity

Published in International journal of nonlinear sciences and numerical simulation

volume:7,issue: 2, pages:129-132 and published in the year 2006

Abstract: This short letter, in fact, this short telegram is mainly intended

to point out a recent and quite unexpected realization that E-Infinity space time

(E-infinity) theory (M. S. El Naschie,Chaos, Soliton & Fractals, 29 pp. 209-236 2004)

could be of a considerable help in deciphering one of the greatest secrets and

impenetrable questions of our own existence, namely what is consciousness and how

does it relate to the brain(G. M. Edelman. Consciousness. Penguin Books, London,2000).

4- Make outrageous claims of having solved long standing problems.

EL- El Naschie claims to have solved: Confinement, Quantum

Gravity, Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics, explained the number

of elementary particles, the value of all gauge couplings..and

many other things...

5-The bad theoretical physicist, in anticipation,

names his own equations and effects, and even his entire theories, after himself right away.

EL- Feynman-El Naschie Hypothesis, El Naschie local

coherence...etc

6- Try to overshout all your critics, and have your work published anyway.

If the well-established science media refuse to publish your work,

EL- El Naschie founded Chaos Solitons and Fractals journal and has to do with the one in China.

caused the xxx ArXives and Wikipedia to refuse your submissions.

EL- El Naschie has been black-listed in xxx ArXives for affiliation arrogating

( forging).( http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0004152). More detail can

be found in ( http://archivefreedom.org/freedom/Cyberia.html).

and even a local radio station of the superiority of your theory.

hot paper in the field of Engineering.

In addition, Dr. El Naschie gives an audio interview about his work.

This is can be found in: http://esi-topics.com/nhp/2006/september-06-MohamedElNaschie
.html

Beside many interviews and TV shows in Egyptian channels.

9- But then there are those few physicists such as one bloke called Gerardus 't Hooft,

who shamelessly have pointed out to you that your theory is nonsense!

Should you take them seriously? Of course not.

Don't even try to show them the details of your derivations,

which you forgot anyway and you might not be able to reproduce on the spot.

Here is what you do to establish your reputation forever: JUST GIVE THEM HELL.

Compare those obnoxious puppets of the establishment with nazis and

threaten them with law suits. That'll teach them.

El- This is can be easily seen from his comments in different

blogs including this blog.

10- Lastly, we ask El Naschie to measure his John Baez index or

crackpot index mentioned in tHooft web

page. (http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html) of course

don't confuse this with Atiyah-Singer or Witten index....

I think with the above ten commands we have shown in a non

refutable way that El Naschie is in one to one correspondence with

the criteria of a BAD THEORETICAL PHYSICIST. Congratulations for

being a champ!

Atef A. wrote on Feb. 5, 2009 @ 13:56 GMT

Kazim wrote on Feb. 5, 2009 @ 14:05 GMT

Moustapha Khalil wrote on Feb. 5, 2009 @ 17:42 GMT
• To say that Said Elnashaie is the brother of Mohamed El Naschie is a complete blatant lie in more than one sense. It is part and parcel of the viscous defamation campaign which started with the publication of the article of Renate Loll, Jan Ambjorn and Jerzy Jurkiewicz in Scientific American. I challenge anyone including Said Elnashaie to produce a birth certificate with the name Elnashie or Elnashaie or any similarly sounding name in Arabic or English. The real name of Dr. Said is Said Salah Hamid. He has adopted the name Elnashaie like he adopted many other things. It is alone the kindness of Mohamed El Naschie that he did not prosecute him in the Courts of Justice to stop him using this name.

Atef wrote on Mar. 1, 2009 @ 22:50 GMT
It is quite clear that Said Elnashaie is behind this vicious campaign against Prof. El Naschie. He is hiding behind Mr. An and lashing out a lot of hatred. Really Mr. An all what you are writing is not serving your case. On the contrary, it is quite clear to all the readers of this site and others that your argument is baseless and vindictive. You don’t have a case whatsoever against Prof. El Naschie. Your problem is personal jealousy and hatred. Do I need to remind you Mr. Said Elnashaie that your personal profile is despicable? In case you forgot, here is your personal profile or better still your certificate of conviction: http:/thecaseofsaidelnashaie.blogspot.com

Fred wrote on Mar. 1, 2009 @ 22:58 GMT
In this site you are Mr. Gm - Are you affiliated with General Motors. I dont think they have any use for you. But your hatred has gone out of all proportions. Poor soul! We think you are pathetic. It is time you cut the crap and face reality. You are a loser Gm or Said Elnashaie and only losers behave the way you do. Try to exercise some self control and refrain from this unfounded campaign. Again your allegations are false and you are exposing a lot of characteristics that we humans shy away from. You are a bad reminder of all that is evil and your comments serve no purpose. I personally have the utmost respect and admiration for the work and person of Mohamed El Naschie.

Advoctes wrote on Mar. 1, 2009 @ 23:02 GMT
This is a direct response to An and now Gm and his silly comment posted on Feb. 28 in Scientific American Blog and all his other false allegations. We think it is time you call it quits. We all respect and admire Prof. El Naschie for his integrity and adroitness. His scientific feat is indisputable and there is no way on earth you are going to sway our minds. You have been trying so hard and so vehemently to smear him by your false allegations. You are the fraud. He never plagiarized nor cheated. His scientific contribution is a paradigm shift and people with little minds and sick souls like you and your puppets will never come to grips with it. Besides you and those in cahoots with you are not in a position to judge Prof. El Naschie. Eat your heart out and no matter how hard you persist and try, we will not be swayed.

Ayman Elokaby wrote on Mar. 4, 2009 @ 14:29 GMT
I am still keenly interested in a satisfactory resolution of the correct inverse coupling constant of unification of all fundamental forces. The value found by Nobel Laureate Steven Weinberg is 17.5 as given on page 192 of volume III of his book – The Quantum Theory of Fields – Cambridge (2000). This 17.5 is for super symmetric grand unification. On the other hand, the leading German Theoretical Physicist W. Greiner gives the value 26 as easily estimated from figure 9.11 page 377 of his famous textbook – Gauge Theory of Weak Interaction – published by Springer – Berlin 1994. My own calculation based on Mohamed Elnaschie exact E-Infinity theory gives 26.18033989 which is very close to the value given by Greiner in his book. It seems that 17.5 must be excluded unless we are overlooking something. To go to the bottom of the discrepancy, I should refer to a remarkable paper by Mohamed Elnaschie titled – Quantum gravity unification via transfinite arithmetic and geometrical averaging – published in Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, volume 35(2008) pp 252 – 256. In this paper Elnaschie uses the exact three inverse couplings of electromagnetism 60, weak force 30 and strong force 10 as idealized for the electroweak energy scale. These values lead to the inverse Summerfield constant 137 as well as three inverse couplings for pair wise unification, namely the electromagnetic and weak force 42.4, the weak force and strong force 17.3 and the electromagnetic and strong force 24.49. Subsequently, Elnaschie shows that the three inverse couplings lead to 26.18 almost exactly as the E-Infinity exact solution. The new insight is however the value of the electromagnetic and weak force namely 17.3 which is very close to that found by Weinberg. The question is therefore the following: Could Weinberg result of 17.5 be interpreted as a partial unification coupling? I would be grateful to any helpful comment.

Ray Munroe wrote on Mar. 11, 2009 @ 12:47 GMT
Dear Ayman,

In my book, New Approaches Towards a Grand Unified Theory (free partial preview at http://www.lulu.com/browse/preview.php?fCID=1296633 (it may take a minute to download). I modelled the low-energy couplings with Quantum Statistical Grand Unification (QSGUT). However, to work back to the GUT-scale couplings requires non-equilibrium quantum statistical mechanics, and gets tricky.

I have the greatest respect for Prof. Steven Weinberg, and would normally take his number over any other available. However, in my studies, I am convinced that both the Weak and Gravitational forces are more complicated than the Standard Model, or even the Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Model.

Fundamentally, I have no problem with using fractal physics to solve this problem. E-infinity almost implies an infinite number of dimensions, but I expect all but four of these dimensions to have fractal effects, and to sum to a finite number of equivalent dimensions. I am familiar with Prof. Mohamed El Naschie's observation that 26 and 10 dimensions are important to String Theory, and the ratio 26/10 is approximately the golden-ratio-squared.

Nevertheless, without a good model of this specific problem, it seems that we are pulling important numbers out of thin air.

Good luck in your efforts. This is an interesting number. It must be modelled correctly.

Sincerely, Ray Munroe

Ahmed wrote on Mar. 14, 2009 @ 12:40 GMT
Dear Dr. Munroe

I am afraid you are more polite than correct. The problem is clear. Prof. Steven Weinberg has made a mistake. It is easy to make mistakes. What is not easy to find it so quickly as Ayman Elokaby did. Actually I should say as Mohamed El Naschie did because he was the first to notice that in a paper entitled Non-perturbative solution to unification or something similar. It is somewhere in Chaos, Solitons & Fractals. What I remember exactly is how easily it can be shown that 17.5 of Weinberg must be wrong. Here is the back of an envelope analogy: You have three fundamental inverse couplings according to E-infinity exact renormalization equation. These are 60 for electromagnetism, 30 for the weak force, 9 for the strong force and 1 for Planckian coupling. The Planckian coupling goes into the strong force and gives 10. So you have 3 crossings. 60, 30 is the first crossing. 60 and 10 is the second crossing. Finally 30 and 10 is the third crossing. The average of two sets is in a sense the unification of the two sets. Now take the geometrical average of 60 multiplied with 30. It is the square root and gives roughly 42 and a little bit. Similarly 60 and 10 gives 24 and a little bit. Finally 30 and 10 gives 17 and a little bit. To unify all crossings in one point you need to take the third root out of the three averages. That way you find 26 and a little bit. The inescapable conclusion is that the 17.5 of Steve Weinberg is incorrect. It is not a grand unification. It is a partial unification. The equations which enable El Naschie to do the trick are based on Feigenbaum’s golden mean renormalization group. It is exact. To show that we solve for the inverse coupling of Sommerfeld electromagnetic coupling. On the right hand side you have 60 times the inverse golden mean which is 1.6188033989 plus the 30 plus the 9 plus the 1. This gives exactly 137.082039325 which is the exact theoretical value of E-infinity theory. You can call the theory foliation or fuzzy or fractal. It all boils down to the same. These are all homomorphic notions as pointed out on many occasions by Prof. Mohamed El Naschie. Hope this clarifies the matter once and for all time.

Ahmed

Abdul Khan wrote on Mar. 14, 2009 @ 13:13 GMT
It is nice to see that Nature has taken out the defamatory article of Schiermeier. I have never in my life witnessed such a despicable and coordinated attack on any scientist like that which was launched against Prof. El Naschie. Even the anti-Semitic attacks on Einstein at least pretended to have some science to them. The attacks on Mohamed El Naschie are so shameless that they do not even pretend to have any scientific content. It is pure hatred, envy and racism.

Ross wrote on Mar. 15, 2009 @ 12:24 GMT
From Sciam:

Droesser's article is back with only minor changes . One can check the two following sites:

http://www.scienceblogs.de/mathlog/2009/03/wissenschaf
tsjournalismus-und-pressefreiheit-update.php (checking changes).

http://www.zeit.de/2009/03/N-El-Naschie (new versions with minor changes)

As the great man El nashice said "This is Germany, a center of modern civilization where truthfulness prevails at the end. "

Soon, the same will happen in nature's article. When the nature article is back we may tell you. In any case the cat is out of the bag. I don't see that El Naschie has much to gain by spending money on lawyers to take down the Nature article. Furthermore, his reactions confirm that he is a fraud which is selfevident even for a blind.

Ray Munroe wrote on Mar. 16, 2009 @ 13:04 GMT
Dear Ahmed (I assume my friend, Nasr?),

Thank you for describing the El Naschie/ El-Okaby unification model to me.

As you know, I am not a proponent of the Standard Model or any minor variations thereof (Supersymmetry included). It is a 4-dimensional model that works below the TeV scale, and that's all (but that's enough for current experiments). As such, I choose not to integrate the Renormalization Group Equations back to the GUT scale as most High Energy Physicists would (this also would not include gravity). Any new, and as yet unknown, fermions or force bosons would affect the end result.

I am trying to derive this number from my ideas on Lie Algebra GUT's and Quantum Statistical Grand Unification. My preliminary results are closer to the El-Okaby number than the Weinberg number, but I need to double-check these results.

Sincerely, Ray Munroe

Adrian Hanno wrote on Mar. 21, 2009 @ 21:22 GMT
Dear Ray,

It is nice to talk physics without any personal edges. Have you seen this ludicrous blog called All El Naschie all the time (http://elnaschiewatch.blogspot.com/)? How did Hugh Grant put it in Notting Hill Gate…. It is surreal…. not nice but surreal. I am afraid Weinberg’s number is completely out. There are a few computational errors. They are elementary errors but this is not the important point. The important point is that El Naschie’s results are exact. They are exact because he uses the number system first proposed by Mahrouz Ahmed. Oh, sorry I should say Dr. Mahrouz Ahmed because he just obtained his Ph.D. from the University of Newcastle on Brand theory. As far as I am aware Ahmed is the first one to propose the golden mean as a number system. You can bet your bottom dollar as you say in the USA that Steven Weinberg’s result is wrong. Weinberg got his non-super symmetric inverse coupling almost correct. His result, which he reported in the same volume mentioned in previous comments is 41. The exact result is of course 42.3606799. Please note that this is ten times the Hausdorff dimension of El Naschie’s spacetime. Let me give you an ingeniously simply derivation of this value. It is very simple if you know the theory of dimension of topological matrix spaces due to Menger and Urysohn. Imagine a 4 dimensional cube. Put inside this 4-dimensional cube another smaller 4-dimensional cube. Go on doing that indefinitely. The result is 4 + 4 bar. A 4 bar is a continuous fraction. That means 4 plus 1 divided by four and again 1 divided by four and so on. A pocket calculator will convince you that you have 4 plus the golden mean to the power of 3. That means 4.236067999. This structure is called in topology Hilbert cube. It is part of the general theory of dimensions. The dimension will mean here something mathematical as shown in a recent paper by Nada as well as Ji-Huan He. You can find these papers on the internet. I have seen them but I have seen this derivation much earlier given by El Naschie in a lecture he delivered in Brussels almost nine years ago. Nobel laureate Ilya Prigogine was still alive but he was not there. His right hand man Prof. Georg Nicollis was there. Now you take this value and in addition nine copies of it. So ten copies in all and that is how you get the exact result, 42.3606799. To obtain the value for super symmetry, all you need is to Weyl scale it using the golden mean and you automatically get 26.18033989. That is all folks. Best wishes,

sh wrote on Mar. 23, 2009 @ 10:32 GMT
Dr. L. Marek-Crnjac wrote on May. 13, 2008 @ 20:47 GMT

On its own as a single Lie symmetric group E8 cannot do the entire job of unification. On the other hand by summing over all exceptional Lie groups it can be done. This was the program of Prof. Mohamed El Naschie with whom I have had the honour of collaborating on this subject for some time.

Dr. L. Marek-Crnjac appeared as a prof. in Sciam the comment dated Nov. 4, 2008 due to Andrei Khory

, which is obviously due to El naschie

".....However nothing is more surprising and revealing as a recent paper of Prof. L. Marek-Crnjac A Feynman path integral-like method for deriving the four dimensionality of spacetime from first principles, 2008 available on Science Direct. Prof. Crnjac derives the exact dimensionality 4.02 using El Naschie's theory without a computer. I was cheered by the fact that a group calling themselves E-infinity fans posed on this site on 11.01/08 at 08.21 p.m. a rather clearly written comment attesting to the same things which I have explained here. The result 4.02 is one of the most remarkable results ever published in theoretical physics for the following reason. Ambjorn used a highly accurate numerical simulation. If 4.02 is the topological dimension of spacetime, he could have increased the accuracy and easily reached 4.0000000. This is so because any deviation from four dimensionality must be enormously small. 0.02 is not a small number compared to four. Consequently this is not a topological dimension. Second this is not the Hausdorff dimension of quantum spacetime....."

Now it comes the important question, who is Prof. L. Marek-Crnjac . The answer can be found in http://elnaschiewatch.blogspot.com/2009/03/hello-slovenia.html

Just for the record:

Leila Marek-Crnjac is a high school math teacher and she obtained her PhD in the field of pedagogical mathematics (needless to say that she fulfilled the PhD criteria due to papers published in CS&F). As for her affiliation at the "Institute of Mathematics, Physics and Mechanics", she is no longer a member of that institution and even in the past was only a part time member for the obvious reason of using her credentials for applications to science projects (see her curriculum):

http://sicris.izum.si/search/rsr.aspx?opt=1?
=eng&id=8298

Greetings from Slovenia,

shrink

The great man using pseudo Prof. to trumpet his theory. As the great man himself is a pesudo prof., then other pseudo profs. are naturally attracted toward him.

Ray Munroe wrote on Mar. 23, 2009 @ 13:47 GMT

I have known Dr. Nasr Ahmed for several months, and congratulated him via e-mail a couple of weeks ago on his recent Ph.D. from Newcastle upon Tine.

I was a graduate student at the University of Texas at Austin in the early 80’s when both Nobel Laureates, Steven Weinberg and Ilya Prigogine were Professors there. I have the greatest respect for both men and their respective fields. My specific Ph.D. was from Florida State University in High Energy Physics Phenomenology and, therefore, closer to Weinberg.

El Naschie and I are both mavericks. I have kept an open mind about his works, but have not yet incorporated all of his techniques into mine.

I am still trying to understand the ORIGINS of these special numbers, 0.618, 1.618, 2.618. Please see my discussion with Steve Dufourny at http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/405. If these numbers are encoded into the fabric of reality, then El Naschie is fully justified in using them so much. Otherwise, it looks like we are making up “magic” numbers. We must be careful with our Physics and Mathematics so that we are not completely isolated from Mainstream Physics.

I think another approach to the problem would be good. I am trying to solve this problem using my E12 TOE and Quantum Statistical Grand Unification. Thus far, different models give different results, and I am unsure which is correct.

Keep an open mind!

Sincerely, Ray Munroe

sh wrote on Mar. 25, 2009 @ 09:37 GMT
From http://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2009/02/06/chaos-continue
s-in-math-journal/

Zoran Skoda Says:

Mar 22, 2009 at 4:27 pm

Elsevier has made the worst possible decision by starting to publishing the backlog of papers which were accepted during the provable badly (or no) peer reviewed age of El Naschie and the rest of complying board. Before Elsevier could claim, well this is the editor’s resposibility, we BELIEVED that the peer reviewing practicies were maintained at hi level. Now they DO know of the problem, and they issues January 15 issue of chaossf with papers accepted by El Naschie’s board, without reexamining them for quality. This is MANIFEST ACCEPTANCE by Elsevier of LOW QUALITY STANDARDS. You know that the papers were accepted in a process doubted by majority of public scientific community, you are reviewing the future of the process but you are happy with taking over 900 papers from that old pool to print! It is unbelieable a major company, not to say world-class SCIENTIFIC publisher would ever dare to be so irresponsible!

Moreover, the number of papers accepted by around New Year was about 900, it has grown since by at least around 40 new articles. That means that the old board is still acting and that Elsevier is doing this. Instead Elsevier bans on new submissions what is an unheard practice for a journal in existance!

One should either cancel the journal or do a Hercules job of make it a quality journal. Though I do not believe the latter were easy. the rest of the board was complient to bad peer reviewing practices. Some of the members of the board confirmed in letters to me that their names were there without their prior consent. Most of others did not respond to my emails if they agreed or not with the current editorial practices as of June 2008. Now who would like to take a role of an editor in the board with such a history. The whole board needs to be replaced at minimum. But I think the chances to regain the value after being so reluctant and defending the undefendable, and prolonging the agony by publishing the badly reviewing papers, is close to zero. I received letters from many members of scientific community and the opinion in general is that chaossf has practically no chance to survive, all the damage the bad past and current practices of the board

and reluctance of Elsevier to act have done.

Zoran Skoda

sh wrote on Mar. 28, 2009 @ 07:04 GMT
As Gerard 't Hooft provided us with the best criteria that nicely fits the

case of El naschie as a bad theoretical physicist.

Another favor has also been done by Gerard 't Hooft is to provide a suitable job for El naschie in Myron Evans University (Pseudo science university). I think that university needs one has merits like those

of El naschie.

According to Gerard 't Hooft in his recent update of his page

"...

One exception I fail to resist. Recently a new University was founded: the Myron Evans University. Here, those with a fine taste for perfection can specialize and obtain PhD degrees. I won't provide the link, but I am sure it will appear right up front if you google it up."

Of course the great man El naschie can google to find the webpage of that

university.

Sh wrote on Apr. 4, 2009 @ 08:34 GMT
As a peice of gold, you find the recent CV of El naschie. One can enjoy reading it on www.fikr7.org/WMS_Gallery/cv/naschie.pdf

that is due to The Arab Thought Foundation (www.arabthought.org) on its seventh conference 2008. Where El naschie was on of the speaker, maybe about pseudo science!!!!!!!!!!

The more interesting thind is about the great man's CV, let us go through it for the sake of joy. In his suspicious academic career, the most suspicious one is to be a Professor at DAMTP 1991-2002, Cambridge, U.K. I don't know if the great man was a fool or full prof. there, please see his record with Cambridge where El Naschie has been black-listed in xxx ArXives for affiliation arrogating (forging).

http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0004152

More detail can be found in http://archivefreedom.org/freedom/Cyberia.html

The great man forged the affiliation of Cambridge.

Activities:

1. Appointed by the Egyptian Minister of Higher Ed cation and Scientific Research as the Advisor for Nano-technology and High Energy Physics, Egypt.

2. Chair of the National Nanotechnology Committee, Egypt.

3- Advisor to President of King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia .

So much the worse for Egypt and Saudi Arabia. But remember the man

has been claimed to be the director of King Abdullah Institute for Nanotechnology here in http://agenda.fisica.uniud.it/difa/getFile.py/access?contrib
Id=52&sessionId=32&resId=0&materialId=slides&confId=9

But if you check the web page of King Abdullah Al Saud Institute for Nano & Advanced Technologies you don't find his name listed in the Committee Members of Establishing King Abdullah Institute for NANO Technology and there is no mention for him at all. That seems odd especially he is the director as he claimed.

One can check the web page for "Committees consultative sciencetisic"

http://www.nano-ksu.com/publish/article_46.shtml

web page for "Supervisory Committee to King Abdullah Institute for Nanotechnology"http://www.nano-ksu.com/publish/article_63.sh
tml

Other writen activities

Founder and Editor in chief of 'The Interdisciplinary Jo rnal of Non-Linear Sciences, Nano & Q ant m Technology' p blished by Elsevier Sciences.

-The great man didn't specify which journal, is it the CS&F that you have already kicked out of it. Or what are the other journals.

- Honorary member in the Editorial Board of The International Journal for E-Infinity and Complexity Theory in High Energy Physics and Engineering. This Journal is exclusively dedicated to Prof. El Naschie’s E-Infinity theory.

Where's that Journal???????????????

Sh wrote on Apr. 4, 2009 @ 08:35 GMT
El naschie mentioned in his recent CV http://www.fikr7.org/WMS_Gallery/cv/naschie.pdf

Honorary member in the Editorial Board of The International Journal for E-Infinity and Complexity Theory in High Energy Physics and Engineering. This Journal is exclusively dedicated to Prof. El Naschie’s E-Infinity Theory.

Can the great man tell us where we can find this journal, it is urgent.

I have a generalization of E-Infinity theory, I call it Alphabetic - Infinity theory, in which E-Infinity is a special case. You can imagine A-Infinity, B-,... and so on even you can use Greek letters. Even more one can use continous index to have really uncountable number of theories.

Publications

More than 500 papers in engineering, applied and theoretical physics. See: www.sciencedirect.com

I think the great man repeatedly telling us that he pubplished 900. Why he didn't mention remaining 400 articles.

I guess the great man has puplished One Thousand and One article, to be similar to One Thousand and One Nights. The man has a taste for classic literature.

Major research interest of the great man

Nuclear engineering, nonlinear dynamics, nanotechnology and quantum field theories and spacetime physics

Of course the great man has a sharp critical mind and he is concerned with the topical questios of his time and even beyond space-time.

Prizes:

Honored for contribution to Science, Abdel Hameed Shoman Foundation, Amman, Jordan in November 2007. Shit
[LOL --Ed]

Sh wrote on Apr. 4, 2009 @ 08:35 GMT
The great man El naschie in his recent CV

http://www.fikr7.org/WMS_Gallery/cv/naschie.pdf

• Research Scientist, University College 1974, London, U.K.

• Associate Professor, KSU 1980, Saudi Arabia

• Distinguished Professor, New Mexico 1981, USA

• Professor, KACST 1985, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia

• Director, KACST 1987, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia

• Professor, Cornell 1988, Sibley School of Aeronautics & Astronautics, USA

• Professor, Solvay Institute for Physics & Chemistry 1990-2004, Free University of

Brussels, Belgium

• Professor, DAMTP 1991-2002, Cambridge, U.K.

• Professor, School of Electronic Engineering 2000-2004, University of Surrey, Guildford, U.K.

It is seems that the great man is fond of both false (pseudo) affiliations and

pseudo sciences. The great man is still not able to realize that his claims can be vindicated easily through internet, please, great man wake up, you are a completely dormant.

El naschie claimed to be the director, KACST (King Abdul Aziz city of science and Technology) during 1987, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.

But if you look at the website of that KACST and the website of past directors, as usual, no mention for him.

aspx

The list is as the following

Prof. Rida M.S. Obaid, KACST President 1977 - 1983

Dr. Saleh Al-Athel, KACST President 1983 - 2007

The great man is a big liar or if he is telling the truth he must sue KACST.

E. W. wrote on May. 27, 2009 @ 14:49 GMT
This is just a typical abstract paper for one of the greatest member of E-infinity club namely Ji-Huan He and his company.

Hierarchy of wool fibers and its interpretation using E-infinity theory

Chaos, Solitons & Fractals,

In Press, Corrected Proof, Available online 9 August 2008

Ji-Huan He, Zhong-Fu Ren, Jie Fan, Lan Xu

Abstract

Why do wool fibers show excellent advantages in warmth-retaining and many other practical properties? The paper concludes that their hierarchical structure is the key. Using E-infinity theory, its Hausdorff dimension is estimated to be about 4.2325, very close to El Naschie’s E-infinity dimension, 4.2360, revealing an optimal structure for wool fibers.

I suggest for the next time that author study tefal coating and how things can't stick to it. And how this related to its fractal properties and in turn to its Hausdorff dimension. That is could be an amazing application of El naschie's E-infinity theory.

Of course this can explain that El naschie is using anti-tefal to stick forever to Elsevier even if he has set to retire.

Bob wrote on May. 29, 2009 @ 21:51 GMT
To the Web Master

Do you consider it correct and fair to take out any positive comments about El Naschie and his work and leaving defamatory stuff against El Naschie and encouraging it? Is that a sign of the chivalry and honor characterizing this site? Mr. E.W. is Mr. An and is identical to Sh. This is the same person who is paid to do the dirty job of defamation. Maybe you would like to have his profile (http://thecaseofsaidelnashaie.blogspot.com/2009/01/case-of-

Rank one wrote on May. 30, 2009 @ 16:57 GMT
A plan to rescue CS&F. I think it would work, but pride will prevent it from being implemented.

My idea is very simple.

1. Keep El Naschie as Editor in Chief.

2. Add to the cover the small-print tagline "for papers that have no chance of being published anywhere else".

3. Rather than making a pretense of individual peer-review, require all submissions to have appeared on the arxiv for two months prior to submission.

4. Reduce the price from $4520 per year to$45.20. That should cover publication costs if authors are required to follow a strict template that avoids the expense of typesetting.

5. Unbundle it from Elsevier's higher-quality journals. Require it to be purchased separately, or demonstrate good humor and lack of bitterness by working out a deal to bundle it with The Journal of Irreproducible Results. http://www.jir.com/

That's the whole plan! There's a refreshing honesty and logic to it. In every area of commerce there are better and worse quality products, and they are distinguished by price. Why should science journals pretend to be different?
[An extract that I wrote on this blog. (I don't mind it being used for good purposes like this.) --Ed]

Hilal wrote on Jun. 10, 2009 @ 17:07 GMT
Yes Rank One. It is a good idea. Add to that the Editor in Chiefs advisor should be Said whose criminal record is in Google http://thecaseofsaidelnashaie.blogspot.com/2009/01/case-of-s
aid-elnashaie.htmlhashcomments . In addition the Editorial Board should comprise the well known one man internet army John Baez who will make sure that any dissenting voice will be punished by an appropriate campaign of defamation owned by Jason. Finally the journal should have two more comperes namely Mr. Christoph Drosser of Die Ziet and the great scientist the one and only hero of Croatia Zoran Skoda. That is enough.

report post as inappropriate

rank one wrote on Jun. 16, 2009 @ 09:15 GMT
Finally the Great Huan was removed from the editorial board of CS&F.

He is one of the greatest suporter of El naschie E-infinity theory

His typical abstract paper

Hierarchy of wool fibers and its interpretation using E-infinity theory

Chaos, Solitons & Fractals,

In Press, Corrected Proof, Available online 9 August 2008

Ji-Huan He, Zhong-Fu Ren, Jie Fan, Lan Xu

Abstract

Why do wool fibers show excellent advantages in warmth-retaining and many other practical properties? The paper concludes that their hierarchical structure is the key. Using E-infinity theory, its Hausdorff dimension is estimated to be about 4.2325, very close to El Naschie’s E-infinity dimension, 4.2360, revealing an optimal structure for wool fibers.

report post as inappropriate

rank one wrote on Jun. 16, 2009 @ 09:18 GMT
Just see the attached pdf file for the new board of CS&F

report post as inappropriate

rank one wrote on Jun. 16, 2009 @ 09:25 GMT
Another associate editor of CS&F who is still there and not removed yet.

M. A. Helal in his one of his funny papers which was comminucated by J. Huan

Chaos, Solitons & Fractals

Volume 36, Issue 4, May 2008, Pages 787-796

Tsunamis from nature to physics

M.A. Helal and M.S. Mehanna

Communicated by Prof. Ji-Huan He. Available online 24 October 2007

Abstract

Tsunamis are gravity waves that propagate near the ocean surface. They belong to the same family as common sea waves that we enjoy at the beach; however, tsunamis are distinct in their mode of generation and in their characteristic period, wavelength, and velocity. The type of tsunamis that induce widespread damage number about one or two per decade. Thus “killer tsunamis” although fearful, are a relatively rare phenomenon.

4. Conclusion

Not all major earthquakes cause tsunami, however many of them do. If the quake is located near or directly under the ocean, the probability of a tsunami increases.

Tsunami can occur at any time, day or night. They can travel up rivers and streams connected to oceans. A small tsunami at one beach can be a giant one few miles away.

Never go down to the beach to watch a tsunami because when you can see the wave you are too close to escape. Tsunami can move much faster than a person can run!

No comments, but I'm sure you will enjoy reading that paper so I attached it.

attachments: sumami.pdf
[Ok. That's pretty damn funny. --Ed]

report post as inappropriate

Hans wrote on Jun. 27, 2009 @ 06:44 GMT
From

sg/e0f80e7f01da5b75

Last year there was some discussion in this group about the number of
publications that the Chief Editor of the journal Chaos, Solitons and
- see

This editor, el Naschie, had 155 papers published in this journal from
2005 to 2008 (74 of them in 2008), another 178 publications in the
journal from before that, and approximately 2 publications anywhere
else.

Elsevier actually did what one could describe as the most minimal
reaction that was possible.
They only fired El Naschie, and seemingly also one of his supporters, J.
J. He, from the editorial board.
However, Elsevier found that the Journal Chaos Solitons and Fractals
had a huge backlog of around 900 articles, which were already accepted
under El Naschie.
Elsevier has decided to print these articles without further peer-review.
For this reason, one still finds some articles about El Naschie's
crackpot theories in the 2009 volumes that have already appeared.
Also, there are El Naschie supporters remaining in the international
editorial board.
The behavior of Elsevier is certainly not what one could call
scientifically appropriate.
Elsevier should immediately fire Editors who collaborated with El
Naschie in the sense that they co-authored or referenced to El Naschie's
crackpot stuff.
Elsevier should not publish the backlog of the Journal without any
additional peer review. They should at least search for articles which
cite El Naschie's work and send them back to a honest peer review
report post as inappropriate

Hans wrote on Jul. 7, 2009 @ 09:53 GMT
Another article about the great man El naschie written by Marc Abrahams

on the Guardian, Tuesday 30 June 2009.

Short bits

Scientists who struggle to get their reports published, or to get anyone to pay attention to them, might consider the path blazed by Dr Mohamed El Naschie. El Naschie found an appreciative science journal editor. The editor subsequently published hundreds of El Naschie's studies, and also made El Naschie a glamorous figure - featuring him in lavish photo-spreads in the company of famous scientists and powerful world leaders. ........

http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2009/jun/30/improbable-r
esearch

The great man El naschie should sue guardian.

report post as inappropriate

Hilal wrote on Aug. 13, 2009 @ 13:33 GMT
Yes Rank One. It is a good idea. Add to that the Editor in Chiefs advisor should be Said whose criminal record is in Google http://thecaseofsaidelnashaie.blogspot.com/2009/01/case-of-s

aid-elnashaie.htmlhashcomments . In addition the Editorial Board should comprise the well known one man internet army John Baez who will make sure that any dissenting voice will be punished by an appropriate campaign of defamation owned by Jason. Finally the journal should have two more comperes namely Mr. Christoph Drosser of Die Ziet and the great scientist the one and only hero of Croatia Zoran Skoda. That is enough.

report post as inappropriate

Hilal wrote on Aug. 13, 2009 @ 13:43 GMT

He wrote on Aug. 20, 2009 @ 09:43 GMT
One can find many funny papers for Huan about

E-infinity Theory (El Naschie Space-time theory)

on http://works.bepress.com/ji_huan_he/

You will find a treasure of comic papers

E-Infinity theory and the Higgs field, Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, Volume 31, Issue 4, February 2007, Pages 782-786 (2007)

E-Infinity theory predicts nine more elementary particles to be discovered in a standard model including...

Twenty-six dimensional polytope and high energy spacetime physics (with Lan Xu, Li-Na Zhang, and Xu-Hong Wu), Chaos, Solitons and Fractals 33 (2007) 5–13 (2007)

We give the exact geometrical shape and study the combinatorial properties of higher dimensional polytopes...

Application of E-infinity theory to biology, Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, Volume 28, Issue 2, April 2006, Pages 285-289 (2006)

Albert Einstein combined continuous space and time into his special relativity, El-Naschie discovered the transfinite...

Application of E-infinity theory to biology, Chaos Solitons and fractals, Volume 28, Issue 2, April 2006, Pages 285-289 (2006)

Albert Einstein combined continuous space and time into his special relativity, El-Naschie discovered the transfinite...

He wrote on Aug. 20, 2009 @ 09:48 GMT
This is a comic abstract for Huan (great supporter of El naschie). It is really shame for Elseiver to publish such kind of paper.

Application of E-infinity theory to biology

Ji-Huan He

College of Science, Donghua University, 1882 Yan-an Xilu Road, Shanghai 200051, China

Accepted 8 August 2005

Abstract

Albert Einstein combined continuous space and time into his special relativity, El-Naschie discovered the transfinite discontinuity of space–time in his E-infinity theory where infinity of dimensions was created. We find a partner of both space–time and E-infinity in biology. In our theory, the number of cells in an organism endows an additional dimension

in biology, leading to explanation of many complex phenomena.

Lee wrote on Aug. 27, 2009 @ 11:00 GMT

A. Hilal wrote on Aug. 27, 2009 @ 11:23 GMT
Said is truly a sad story. Even as a young student in the University of Cairo Said Salah Eldin Alnashaie was a problem. First he belonged to the Moslem brotherhood then he quarreled with them. Subsequently he joined the Egyptian Communist party and then he quarreled with them. At one point he was the treasurer of the Coop of the University of Cairo. He was forced to resign following allegations he misappropriated funds. In fact he was known amongst us students as being fiscally irresponsible and financially dishonest. I never imagined however that after growing up and becoming a well known professor, he and his wife could forge signatures and steal his own mother. It is an unbelievable story and you can see the original certificate of his conviction by linking to http://thecaseofsaidelnashaie.blogspot.com/

LOAN MONEY MARKET INVESTMENT wrote on Aug. 28, 2009 @ 00:55 GMT
LOAN MONEY MARKET INVESTMENT,

I am Larry Smith

I give out loan to Business Men and women who are into Business transaction, I

give out long term loan for three to five years maximum with your interest in

this you can as well tell me the amount you need so that I send to you the

terms and condition that is if you are really interested in getting a loan from

me,

Loan is given out in Pounds and $US the maximum I give is 5,000,000 both in pounds and$US and the minimum 5,000 pounds and US$so if really you are interested mail for more info on how the loan can be transferred to you. There is one Question I have to ask are a serious individual that we take a loan and pay back after duration with the interest, if you are honest I will trust you because I like to do business with Honest people if you are one you will get the loan with out problem and for your information if you should more loan like$50,000,000m I can give only if you are one of these categories:

Contact via,

email: larrymoneyinvestment@live.com

Manager of a company

A private Holder

A broker in banks

A director in any office or company

A high investor of a company

If you are one of the following you can get $50,000,000 US Dollars as loan or if personal loan you can request for 5,000-5,000,000 as loan. Hope to here from you soon. Name In full________________________ Occupation________________________ Counry___________________________ State____________________________ City_____________________________ Amount Need______________________ Zip code:_________________________ Phone Number____________________ Sex_____________________________ Switable Duration____________________________ Send these info it is important. Mind you loans is given to every part of the world only if I see you to be honest and will pay back after duration. If you are interested you have to send the amount you need as loan so that I can give you the terms and condition on the loan for your information loan are given to every part of the world on honest people so if you are honest apply for the loan now. email. larrymoneyinvestment@live.com Thanks and Have a nice day Ads. wrote on Sep. 2, 2009 @ 07:32 GMT Another comic title and abstract for the great man El naschie Chaos, Solitons and Fractals 18 (2003) 401–420 The VAK of vacuum fluctuation, Spontaneous self-organization and complexity theory interpretation of high energy particle physics and the mass spectrum Very long title, I think he should add at the end of the title "and all of that" Comic affiliations... Another comic title and abstract for the great man El naschie Chaos, Solitons and Fractals 18 (2003) 401–420 The VAK of vacuum fluctuation, Spontaneous self-organization and complexity theory interpretation of high energy particle physics and the mass spectrum Very long title, I think he should add at the end of the title "and all of that" Comic affiliations (don't take them seriously) Solvay Institute of Theoretical Physics, and Chemistry, Free University of Brussels, Brussels, Belgium School of Electronic Engineering, University of Surrey, Guildford, UK Department of Astronomy and Astrophysics, Faculty of Science, University of Cairo, Cairo, Egypt Here is the comic abstract Abstract The paper is a rather informal introduction to the concepts and results of the E-infinity Cantorian theory of quantum physics. The fundamental tools of complexity theory and non-linear dynamics (Hausdorff dimensions, fat fractals, etc.) are used to give what we think to be a new interpretation of high energy physics and to determine the corresponding mass-spectrum. Particular attention is paid to the role played by the VAK, KAM theorem, Arnold diffusion, Newhaus sinks and knot theory in determining the stability of an elementary ‘‘particle-wave’’ which emerges in self-organizatory manner out of sizzling vacuum fluctuation. Finally a comic Acknowledgements The author is indebted to his teacher, colleague and friend Prof. Dr. h.c.W. Martienssen, University of Frankfurt, for countless long discussions extending over a period of at least one year as well as detailed criticisms, suggestions and drawing the author's attention to many useful sources in the literature on the subject. I am indebted to Prof. t'Hooft for criticism and discussion particularly with regards to the derivation of the Sommerfeld fine structure constant. I am also indebted to Prof. S. Metwally and Prof. A. Wiffi of the Mechanical Engineering Department of Cairo University, Egypt for designing two experimental set-ups of vital importance for the Fig. 7. Galatee Aux Sph eres (1952) by Salvador Dali [DEMART PRO ARTE BV/DACS 1996]. A mid picture singularity gives rise to an explosion of BT spheres on all scales forming globally a turbulent topological female face. A correlated chaos gives rise to form. M.S. El Naschie / Chaos, Solitons and Fractals 18 (2003) 401–420 419 present work as well as Prof. A. Helal from the Department of Mathematics, Cairo University, and Prof. Y. Bakry from Fayoum Branch of Cairo University and Prof. Nagwa Zahran from the Egyptian Atomic Energy Agency, Prof. M. Wanas from the Dept. of Astrophysics, University of Cairo and my teacher Prof. A. Zaky, Electrical Engineering Department, University of Alexandria, Alexandria, for various stimulating discussions. A visit to the Maxplanck Einstein's Institute in Berlin has also helped improve the mathematical presentation. Last but not lease, I am grateful to Prof. Sidharth, Director of the Birla Institute, Hyderabad, India for his hospitality, to the Physikalich Institut of the University of Frankfurt, Germany and its Dean, Prof. Dr. h.c. Multi Walter Greiner for his continuous support in numerous ways. Last but not least, I am indebted to the fundamental work of Garnet Ord. You can enjoy all of that on http://www.el-naschie.net/bilder/file/7.%20The%20VAK%20of%20 vacuum%20fluctuation,%20spontaneous.pdf The great man offering this free enjoyment on his web site Leonard Malinowski wrote on Sep. 27, 2009 @ 06:44 GMT Can someone please tell me if anything in this fractal physics article does not match physical reality? attachments: 1_Scaling_Fractals__the_5th_Dimension.pdf report post as inappropriate Joshua wrote on Sep. 28, 2009 @ 11:35 GMT This comment answers the misconceptions and false statements in the blog run by Thila Kuessner http://www.scienceblogs.de/mathlog/2009/08/nichts-gelernt-be i-elsevier.php. I am sorry but you are wrong. This alone shows you that peer review is not a medicine for all inflictions and who is peer reviewing your wrong comments anyway? The situation with four dimensional cube is completely different from the ordinary three dimensional cube. Apart of all that the connection between the Peano curves or the Peano Hilbert curves to be more precise and Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle is well documented in the literature. See for instance what many people including Garnett Ord have written on this subject thirty years ago. This is not the place to discuss these issues. Those who have real objection should write to the learned Journal pointing out the deficiency if any. What you are doing here is nothing more but nothing less than perpetuating defamatory allegations initiated by John Baez on the orders of Renate Loll. I understand that Germans would like to close ranks against outsiders but then it is not Elsevier who did not learn anything but it is such Germans who haven’t learned anything from history. Incidentally how do you know that it was not peer reviewed by somebody who is as ignorant as those writing the comments on this blog? Prof. Dr. Dr. Dr. peer reviewed could be anyone including Dr. Dr. Dr. Said whose criminal record maybe found in http://thecaseofsaidelnashaie.blogspot.com/ and who is the real author of the boring comment lodged under the name of Thilo Kuessner which keeps popping up in every conceivable blog which is ready to display criminal allegations. Of course everyone knows meantime about the clique of Christoph Drosser and Querein Schermeier all working for McMillan, the Publisher facing criminal charges in the High Court of London. Reza wrote on Oct. 5, 2009 @ 23:17 GMT For my own taste the Aharanov Effect should get a Nobel Prize. There is a snag however. To explain this effect rationally, you have to define the empty set using two different dimensional theories. The first is the Menger-Urhyson. In this case the empty set has the dimension minus 1. The second dimension corresponding to that is a Hausdorff dimension. Following Alain Conne non-commutative geometry or equivalently E-Infinity theory, the Hausdorff dimension in this case is the golden mean square. Since El Naschie, Conne and E-Infinity theory are opposed by the mainstream for their end and means, I cannot see how they can award the Nobel Prize for that although they do deserve it as far as I am concerned. Tom wrote on Oct. 12, 2009 @ 06:36 GMT It is a petty that El naschie didn't win 2009 Nobel prize in any field Physics, Chemistry, Medicine, Literature, Economics even Peace. The man with great talent like El naschie whose E-infinity theory could be applied to any thing like physics, chemistry, Economics, political conflict, Literature, History and Philosophy should at least get one Nobel prize. This is the list of winner for physics. Charles K. Kao , Willard S. Boyle and George E. Smith I'm sure those scientist will dedicates their Noble prize to El naschie who paved and illuminated their research carriers. Moreover, El naschie didn't get ignoble prize for 2009 http://improbable.com/ig/winners/#ig2009 http://improbabl e.com/ig/ The Ig Nobel Prizes honor achievements that first make people laugh, and then make them think. The prizes are intended to celebrate the unusual, honor the imaginative -- and spur people's interest in science, medicine, and technology. I think all people agree that El naschie's papers have a great deal of humor and make people deeply laugh and then seriously think that these papers are just junk. Anon wrote on Nov. 5, 2009 @ 20:52 GMT The Proprietor of this blog may like to have a look at Sarah Limbricks article dated 2 Nov 2009. It is clear from this article entitled Editor of Scientific journal sues Nature that El Naschie has taken serious legal steps against the subject matter of your blog. El Naschie has hired one of Englands leading libel experts and a well established firm Collyer Bristow of London. It will definitely be a long and costly legal battle. However it is now clear to any level headed person that El Naschie must have profound reasons to take this step in the High Court. I think it is the new culture of internet defamation which must be stopped. Without the internet the allegations made by N Category Cafe could not have been possible and consequently this entire regrettable affair. Anon wrote on Nov. 6, 2009 @ 17:41 GMT Sarah Limbrick would surely be interested to know what the leading libel expert in England had to say about the Nature article complained of. He said he is in a state of disbelief that the worlds most respectable scientific journal Nature should publish an article which bears all the hallmarks of the tabloid press. Another interesting point is the conspiracy theory linking the plagiarism of El Naschies work published in Scientific American with the Nature article as well as a far worse article published in Die Zeit. Interestingly all of these three publications are owned by Macmillan. I understand from confidential sources that a mega surprise will be released at the trial engulfing highly reputed names some of whom are Nobel laureates. The site is http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=1&storyc ode=44545&c=1. Anon wrote on Nov. 7, 2009 @ 18:24 GMT I must disappoint you as Sarah Limbrick is not interested in anything. Sarah Limbrick is part and parcel of the John Baez internet army. She does not allow any comments on her half page article except if they defame Prof. El Naschie. Incidentally all the three comments which Sarah published are bogus. The last two are from the same crackpot Said Hamad. You can read about his background and conviction at http://thecaseofsaidelnashaie.blogspot.com/2009/01/case-of-s aid-elnashaie.html#comments. I am afraid Nature will have to pay for all that. Of course Nature belongs to Macmillan who are so large that they may think they are above the law. However we have seen what happened to Leeman Brothers. No one is above the law. Michael Wachonski wrote on Nov. 15, 2009 @ 18:40 GMT Sehr geehrter Herr Blog-Intendant, anscheinend machen Sie sich ernsthafte Gedanken über Islam und Wissenschaft. Ich nehme an, dass Sie nicht an einer Verleumdungskampagne teilnehmen wollen, denn dafür gibt es im Internet genügend Personen die ihr Leben damit vertrudeln andere Menschen aus Frust zu beschimpfen und ihnen alles Mögliche in die Schuhe schieben. Wenn ich in dieser Annahme richtig bin, dann möchten Sie sicherlich folgendes wissen. 1. John Baez ist kein ernsthafter Mathematiker und noch weniger Physiker. Er hat sich lediglich durch seine große Klappe einen Namen gemacht. 2. Renate Loll hat viele Arbeiten veröffentlicht, die letzte in Scientific American, die nichts anderes sind als eine Reformulierung der Theorie von Mohamed El Naschie, Laurent Nottale und Garnet Ord. Dies ist eine wissenschaftliche Unehrlichkeit in größtem Maße. 3. Als Rache an EL Naschie hat Loll die mit Baez sehr befreundet ist ihn beauftragt die Verleumdungskampagne zu inszenieren. Nature, Quirin Schiermeier und Christoph Drösser waren nur Werkzeuge von John Baez. 4. Rückenstärkung bekommt Professor Renate Loll von ihrem Chef dem Nobellaureat Geradus t Hooft. Schließlich wird das Preisegeld zusammen geteilt. 5. Geradus t Hooft ist ein enger Freund und Kollege von El Naschie. Was für eine Freundschaft. Der Rest ist Schweigen. 6. Wenn Sie im Obergericht in London nachfragen, werden Sie wissen, dass El Naschie Nature, Quirin Schiermeier, DIE ZEIT und Scientific American vor den Kadi genommen hat. Das ist das erste Mal in der Geschichte der renommierten Zeitschrift Nature, dass sie vor Gericht stehen. Glauben Sie im Ernst, irgendein Professor wird diesen Schritt wagen wenn er im Unrecht wäre. Sie müssen auch wissen, das die größte Anwaltskanzlei Londons Professor Mohamed El Naschie repräsentiert. Diese Kanzlei würde niemals jemanden gegen Nature repräsentieren wenn er im Unrecht wäre. Die haben einen Namen zu bewahren. Das sind die Tatsachen und wenn Sie es unverändert in Ihrem Blog veröffentlichen dann helfen Sie dabei die Wahrheit ans Tageslicht zu bringen. NJ wrote on Nov. 15, 2009 @ 23:01 GMT This is probably the first time in history, someone let alone an Editor in Chief takes Nature to Court. The Nature article would undoubtedly have caused someone like Charles Darwin to turn in his grave. Charlie Chaplin would have called it modern times. I call it bad times, when something as big and great as Nature descends to the level of Schiermeier’s article. Incidentally El Naschie is not taking only Nature to Court. He is taking Macmillan to Court. That means he is taking Scientific American, Nature and Die Zeit to Court. Anyone who can put the pieces together will get the point. Anonymous wrote on Nov. 16, 2009 @ 10:21 GMT To NJ (El naschie) I think that you forget to mention Guardian journal, this also should be taken to court. http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2009/jun/30/improbable-r esearch A little self-promotion goes a long way by Marc Abrahams, the editor of the bimonthly Annals of Improbable Research and organiser of the Ig Nobel prize I wish good luck for our greatest crackpot (El naschie). Buddy wrote on Nov. 17, 2009 @ 12:23 GMT The time of Huxley and Darwin were the golden age of science. Now we have funding, American style. Once you have money playing such a fundamental role, as is the case in big science, then for better or worse, ethical standards change. You remember a theorem a day means promotion and pay. Mohamed El Naschie was of course quite naïve. He is an engineer. High energy physics is not his professional work. He practices it in a gentlemanly manor as a hobby. He was woken up in a bitter way. Unlike engineers prizes are the only way for theoretical physicists to come to big chunks of money. Do I need to say more? Good luck with your litigation. You will need all your savings, El Naschie that is, to pay your lawyers. Anon wrote on Nov. 18, 2009 @ 14:03 GMT Who the hell is Marc Abrahams? We are talking about Nature, something respectable. Monkeys like Said, John Baez, Quirin Schiermeier or Christoph Drosser do not count. These are insects and a waste of space. No sane person would waste money on these creatures. It is Nature what matters so what are you going to do about it Said, John Baez etc. etc. You did not count on that. You really thought you could get away with it. You are unteachable idiots. Always were and always will be. You will remain for the rest of your miserable life imprisoned in your hate and self illusion of the coming vendetta. Haven’t you noticed Said that even your closest friends despise you? Do yourself a favor and take your own life. No one is going to do you this service. By the way Said your CV is on http://thecaseofsaidelnashaie.blogspot.com/2009/01/case-of-s aid-elnashaie.html#comments. Jant wrote on Nov. 22, 2009 @ 01:05 GMT This is a direct answer to Alizee March 29, 2009 published in Physorg.com http://www.physorg.com/news157203574.html You said El Naschie was cheating which is definitely not true. To see that the truth is coming out please follow the case in the High Court in London. Consult the site Sarah Limbrick in Press Gazette http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=1&storyc ode=44545&c=1&dsq=22049181#comment-22049181 . The conspiracy against Mohamed El Naschie to defraud him of the fruits of his fifteen years old research together with this colleagues Garnet Ord, Laurent Nottale, Ji-Huan He and Ervin Goldfain on fractal spacetime, E-infinity and Cantor sets in quantum mechanics is becoming evident. The work of El Naschie preceded that of Renate Loll by fifteen years. Evidence to this effect will surely be submitted to the High Court at the trial. It is really regrettable that the article by Benedetti will be considered not as an excellent article which it is, but as proof of plagiarism. All this could have been avoided by a minimum of modesty and common sense. By the same token, World War I and World War II could have been avoided. PW wrote on Nov. 22, 2009 @ 12:56 GMT Those who say El Naschie’s work is numerology are either totally ignorant of mathematics and numerics or they are pretentious. Numerology is a cheap shot as Gerard ‘tHooft himself said. Nobel laureate Gerard ‘tHooft is definitely right. Whenever a scientist does not understand something because it is outside of his traditional education he searches for Achilles heel in the corresponding work. More frequently they say complex mathematics. Some would call it esoterical mathematics. For years they attacked string theory because they did not understand the physics of Zeta function. The main lobby behind the accusations of numerology is Renate Loll. At the point of writing this comment Dr. Renate Loll from Utrecht University has one official aim which is to destroy the reputation of Mohamed El Naschie. She works day and night with her Ph.D. student to reformulate his work in order to call it her own. Benedetti is just one of her cat’s claws. She and John Baez are who is repeating with boring frequency that El Naschie’s work is numerology. This is utter nonsense and to be sure of that just read his work attentively. It is set theory and group theory plus fractals. Read the work of T.N. Palmer of Cambridge. It is published in the Royal Society. Palmer’s words in describing the deficiency in quantum mechanics are unrivalled and can be compared only with those of Einstein that God does not play dice. Palmer said quantum mechanics is blind to fractals. That is where the work of El Naschie comes in. Nothing less and nothing more. SJ wrote on Nov. 23, 2009 @ 21:38 GMT Peer review for avant-garde work is nothing but a red herring. Take Renate Loll again. She is using the IOP journal Classical and Quantum Gravity as her own private playground. She can publish anything she likes there including caricatures of herself watching Wheeler’s foam spacetime and mistaking it for a fractal. How can she do that? Easy. Her boss is the one who appointed the Editor of the journal and the younger editors are again her own ex-Ph.D. students. It is just like a banana republic of the old South America where the system ensures that by law you cannot change the system. We are the establishment and no other establishment can be established. These guys forget only too easily that they came to power by a coupe d’état. That is the case with string theory at least. Yet there is something sinister here. The establishment wants to have its cake and eat it. Garnet Ord, Laurent Nottale and El Naschie should not publish their work. But in order to be fair to them, we will publish it using our terminology and some additional decoration. For instance we change fractals to foliation and Cantor sets to partially ordered sets. The golden mean which insures Penrose type of area preservation should be called symplectic group as Renate Loll does in her recent paper also in Classical and Quantum Gravity. No wonder Perleman decided to refuse any prize calling the entire system corrupt. David wrote on Nov. 30, 2009 @ 18:06 GMT It is not just a matter of funding which is behind the defamatory article in Nature. I think prestigious prizes also play a fundamental role. I read that somewhere on the net but strangely it was removed. The prize in question seems to be the Nobel Prize. Some say that not even the devil could have thought of something as harmful to science as the Nobel Prize. They reckon it is not the prize money itself but the publicity which the Nobel Prize brings. In turn this is translated into money. Noting the recent discovery of the sleaze at the Ivy Leagues in the US I am not astonished that this cash is badly needed. If this is true for Harford why should it not be true for the Einstein Inst. in Berlin or the University of Utrecht in Holland. The names involved with Mohamed El Naschie are quite interesting. Somebody wrote yesterday that he would not be astonished if a best seller comes out of this horrific story in the next few years. It is alright for some. The same writer said try as hard as he can, he simply cannot fathom how the Editor in Chief of Nature could allow this tabloid piece to be published in his journal. He must have his reasons or he had a very deep snooze. He added that he may have had too much respect for Nature just as he used to have for the Nobel Committee. This implies that he has none any longer which is interesting. Finally the writer noted that Mohamed El Naschie had no vested interest and certainly no materialistic interest in publishing his papers because he was sufficiently rich and famous before turning to theoretical physics. The author of this remarkable comment closed by noting that any successful engineer who leaves engineering to be become a theoretical physicist should have his head checked. In other words, he doubts the sanity of theoretical physicists, Mohamed El Naschie included. Anonymous wrote on Dec. 9, 2009 @ 07:16 GMT I think El naschie is too foolish, he entered the trap and then he can't retreat. He started to sue nature, that is a great giant, and at the end he will loose. For him, it would be much better if he started to break the ring from the weakest point, for example starting by John Baez or Peter Woit who clearly stated that his works are mere garbage. But doing that way has a dilemma, namely focusing on a small target which still costs much and with a little benefit. It is like firing a tent in a desert with rocket of 1 Million Dollars. Any decision El naschie would decide would have brought him a disaster. That is foolishness has no remedy at all. El naschie has a lot of foolishness. Notsoanonymous wrote on Dec. 12, 2009 @ 11:10 GMT What a well meant advice Mr. Anonymous. I am sure Prof. El Naschie will take your advice immediately if he would not know your exact name. You are one of the sock puppets of the mental case Said Salah El Din Hamed. See: http://thecaseofsaidelnashaie.blogspot.com/. Although your English Said was never great, your attempt to pretend that you do not know how to write proper English is pathetic. Your morals are really inferior if they exist at all. You really think that England is a Middle Eastern Desert Country? The difference between England and where you grew up is that in the court of justice there is no difference between a giant and a midget, all are equal. For Middle Eastern insect like yourself, your wife and your supporters, whom you gained by inviting them for a meal or even cheaper prices, this is totally incomprehensible. You are and you will remain a mad man and an inferior insect and totally revolting biological unit. Even John Baez whom you drafted into this disgraceful defamation has more worth and value than you and your entire so-called family. Notsoanonymous Anonymous wrote on Dec. 19, 2009 @ 08:21 GMT Another recent article about El naschie and his unique fraudulence. The article also mentioned Huan, who is one of greatest suporter of E-infinty. The article is very tough and harsh. Integrity Under Attack: The State of Scholarly Publishing By Douglas N. Arnold http://www.ima.umn.edu/~arnold/siam-columns/integrity- under-attack.pdf We hope El naschie will sue Douglas N. Arnold and wouldn't say Who the hell is Marc Douglas? I wish good luck for our El naschie the greatest crackpot of our time. Anonymous wrote on Dec. 19, 2009 @ 08:25 GMT Short bit of the recent article about El naschie Integrity Under Attack: The State of Scholarly Publishing By Douglas N. Arnold http://www.ima.umn.edu/~arnold/siam-columns/integrity-under-attack.pdf Rumors of editor and journal misconduct have dominated the highly publicized case of the applied math journal Chaos, Solitons and Fractals (CSF),... view entire post Short bit of the recent article about El naschie Integrity Under Attack: The State of Scholarly Publishing By Douglas N. Arnold http://www.ima.umn.edu/~arnold/siam-columns/integrity- under-attack.pdf Rumors of editor and journal misconduct have dominated the highly publicized case of the applied math journal Chaos, Solitons and Fractals (CSF), published by Elsevier. As reported in a 2008 article in Nature,[2] “Five of the 36 papers in the December issue of Chaos, Solitons and Fractals alone were written by its editor-in-chief, Mohamed El Naschie. And the year to date has seen nearly 60 papers written by him appear in the journal.” In fact, of the 400 papers by El Naschie indexed in Web of Science, 307 were published in CSF while he was editor-in-chief. This extremely high rate of selfpublication by the editor-in-chief led to charges that normal standards of peer-review were not upheld at CSF; it has also had a large effect on the journal’s impact factor. (Thomson Reuters calculates the impact factor of a journal in a given year as C/A, where A is the number of articles published in the journal in the preceding two years, and C is the number of citations to those articles from articles indexed in the Thomson Reuters database and published in the given year.) El Naschie’s papers in CSF make 4992 citations, about 2000 of which are to papers published in CSF, largely his own. In 2007, of the 65 journals in the Thomson Reuters category “Mathematics, Interdisciplinary Applications,” CSF was ranked number 2. Another journal whose high impact factor raises eyebrows is the International Journal of Nonlinear Science and Numerical Simulation (IJNSNS), founded in 2000 and published by Freund Publishing House. For the past three years, IJNSNS has had the highest impact factor in the category “Mathematics, Applied.” There are a variety of connections between IJNSNS and CSF. For example, Ji-Huan He, the founder and editor-in-chief of IJNSNS, is an editor of CSF, and El Naschie is one of the two co-editors of CSF; both publish copiously, not only in their own journals but also in each other's, and they cite each other frequently. Let me describe another element that contributes to IJNSNS's high impact factor. The Institute of Physics (IOP) publishes Journal of Physics: Conference Series (JPCS). Conference organizers pay to have proceedings of their conferences published in JPCS, and, in the words of IOP, “JPCS asks Conference Organisers to handle the peer review of all papers.” Neither the brochure nor the website for JPCS lists an editorial board, nor does either describe any process for judging the quality of the conferences. Nonetheless, Thomson Reuters counts citations from JPCS in calculating impact factors. One of the 49 volumes of JPCS in 2008 was the proceedings of a conference organized by IJNSNS editor-in-chief He at his home campus, Shanghai Donghua University. This one volume contained 221 papers, with 366 references to papers in IJNSNS and 353 references to He. To give you an idea of the effect of this, had IJNSNS not received a single citation in 2008 beyond the ones in this conference proceedings, it would still have been assigned a larger impact factor than any SIAM journal except for SIAM Review. Ryan wrote on Jan. 2, 2010 @ 15:50 GMT Readers of this blog should be in no doubt what so ever about the identity of Mr. Anonymous who keeps putting comments under various names on this site, for instance the Sons of Egypt, Alshistawy and what have you. The real identity of this sick person is explained at length in the blog called The Truth about Dr. Said Salah El Din Hamad (http://thecaseofsaidelnashaie.blogspot.com/2009/01/case-of- said-elnashaie.html#comments). He is an ex-professor of chemistry from the University of Cairo. He is also an ex-professor from Auburn, USA as well as an ex-professor from Pennsylvania State. Finally he is an ex-professor from Sinai University, Egypt. You notice the continual decline in his career. This is not because the man was convicted for three years hard labor in absentia for forgery and theft but it is mainly because he is mad. I mean real, live, barmy mad. Please do not take it as an insult. It is the description of a mad man. His madness makes him equivalent to a rabid dog but this is what madness sometimes causes people to be. He has been offering his help to damage and defame Prof. M.S. El Naschie in any way possible. He was one of several main movers behind luring Nature into writing the tabloid defamatory article which they wrote. He bribed several journalists in Germany to write defamatory articles against Prof. M.S. El Naschie. He is in constant contact with Quirin Schiermeier as well as an Editor in Die Zeit who answers to the name of Christoph Drosser. All these facts are now part of the documentation held by the High Court in London. These are public documents, open to scrutiny by anyone who holds proper identification and requests to inspect the documents following the rules of the High Court. Anon wrote on Jan. 2, 2010 @ 23:09 GMT Dear Takis, I think there is confusion here. Whether El Naschie’s papers are of high or low quality is not at all the issue. The quality of any paper on theoretical physics is not decided upon by a journalist who got a second class honor degree in geography, such as Quirin Schiermeier, the writer of the Nature article. No scientific article published in a scientific journal could possibly be discussed in a tabloid article even if it is accepted by the Editor of Nature. This is in itself a scandal that Nature should degrade itself to a tabloid publication. The central point of El Naschie’s case against Nature is that they cast doubt upon his credentials. Quirin Schiermeier lied when he said that Prof. Walter Greiner spoke to him and said what Quirin Schiermeier claims he said in the article. The same applies to most of the names mentioned in the article except for a total non entity from Croatia, a Dr. Zoran Skoda. This Croatian will most probably be charged with an attempt to blackmail. A letter which he sent to one of Prof. El Naschie’s students in Italy cannot be interpreted in any way except blackmail. Similarly a friend and colleague of Quirin Schiermeier, an Editor of Die Zeit, a Mr. Christoph Drosser lied in Court in Hamburg on the instructions of his friends John Baez and Quirin Schiermeier. It is not about science at all. It is all about money and corruption all apart from racial discrimination. If El Naschie’s work is such trash, then two questions arise. First why all this fuss about trash and second and probably more importantly, why should the right hand of a Nobel laureate plagiarize this work and publish it in Scientific American? You are eluding yourself if you think that a man like Mohamed El Naschie and a law firm like Collyer Bristow would take a well established icon of scientific publishing like Nature to Court just for fun. Ayman Abdulrahman wrote on Jan. 7, 2010 @ 21:13 GMT Mr. Richard Poynder, the proprietor of a blog discussing El Naschie was rather diligent as well as accurate in updating his readers about the journal Chaos, Solitons & Fractals and its Founding Editor in Chief, Prof. M.S. El Naschie. Somewhat surprisingly updating stopped at a juncture which is far more interesting and revealing than the rehearsed diffusive information of the spokes lady of Elsevier. It might serve a purpose to complete the picture, in fact to shed light on the picture by pointing out that Prof. El Naschie has successfully issued proceedings against Nature for defamation. This information is on the net since a few months having been posted by Sarah Limbrick. Responsible research journalists should work out the real reason behind what now appears to have been a major nasty conspiracy of one sort or another. Here is some food for thought. After the plagiarism in the Scientific American article which preceded the entire scandal, were El Naschie and his school under pressure to make the wider general public aware of their work? In other words was there a decision taken by the El Naschie group to publish as many papers as possible in order to expose the scientific dishonesty committed in the 2008 Scientific American article about fractal spacetime? El Naschie was the Editor in Chief of Chaos, Solitons & Fractals for almost two decades. He published many papers there but never anything as near as the number of papers which flew into press in Chaos, Solitons & Fractals after the Scientific American article of Renate Loll and her colleagues. There are many other questions which may at least explain part of what is really going on behind closed doors. What is the role of the contract signed between Elsevier and the Minister of Science & Technology of Egypt? I read in the press that there was quite a ceremony with pomp and circumstance in Cairo a few weeks ago. Mohamed El Naschie is the adviser of the Ministry. Everybody knows that Minister Hani Hilal is extremely worried about his ministerial post being one of the least efficient Ministers in the history of Egypt. Did His Excellency have anything to do with the entire affair? Are Elsevier completely innocent with regard to what is now transpiring as being a defamatory tabloid article published in Nature? And what about the Egyptian Nobel laureate Ahmad Zuwail? He is not only an arch enemy of the son of the President, Gamal Mubarak but also of Mohamed El Naschie, his greatest rival. This is not idle speculation when you know how Ahmad Zuwail is involved with Elsevier. In fact he gave them money to establish a prize to be given in his name every year in the hope of promoting his stature in Egypt hoping to become a successor to President Mubarak. Only responsible and serious journalists could shed light on all these issues to find the truth about the scientific counterpart of Watergate. Everybody knows that Obama is not madly in love with the regime in Egypt. He recently appointed Zuwail to be his personal envoy to Cairo. Obama is hoping to use soft power to twist President Mubarak’s hand using Zuwail. Mohamed El Naschie on the other hand is extremely popular and that although he is a supporter of Gamal Mubarak and the President. The Middle East is a strange place with a history full of intrigues. I for one think there is more to this than meets the eye with respect to this Chaos, Solitons & Fractals saga. The truth may turn out to be wholly different to what people want us to believe. What do you think, is that something which Mr. Poynder could find out? Good luck and may the truth come out. Jason wrote on Jan. 8, 2010 @ 09:33 GMT With regard to the post immediately before this one, see The wisdom of Ayman Abdulrahman http://elnaschiewatch.blogspot.com/2010/01/wisdom-of-ayman-abdulrahman.html Fred wrote on Jan. 11, 2010 @ 10:33 GMT For the great supporter of El naschie (Ayman Abdulrahman), who is most probably El naschie himself. You can check yours self a typical paper for Huan using E-infinity theory, and I think a high school student can easily judge that this absolute trash. Hierarchy of wool fibers and its interpretation using E-infinity theory Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, Chaos,Solitons and Fractals 41 (2009)1839 –1841 Ji-Huan He, Zhong-Fu Ren, Jie Fan, Lan Xu Abstract Why do wool fibers show excellent advantages in warmth-retaining and many other practical properties? The paper concludes that their hierarchical structure is the key. Using E-infinity theory, its Hausdorff dimension is estimated to be about 4.2325, very close to El Naschie’s E-infinity dimension, 4.2360, revealing an optimal structure for wool fibers. Then the same article again with little modifications Hierarchy of Wool Fibers and Fractal Dimensions International Journal of Nonlinear Sciences and Numerical Simulation,9(3),293-296, 2008 http://works.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=103 7&context=ji_huan_he Abstract Wool fiber shows excellent advantages in warmth-retaining and many other practical properties possibly due to its hierarchical structure. Its fractal dimension of wool fiber is calculated which is very close to the Golden Mean, 1.618. The present study might provide a new interpretation for the reason why wool fiber has so many excellent properties. I think every reader (even a niave one) can notice the confilict between the two abstracts, in the first fibre wool has dimension 4.2325 (which is greater than the embedding space) and in the second it is 1.618. I hope El naschie can explain these remarkable results. Maged wrote on Jan. 16, 2010 @ 10:18 GMT To Fred Astaire without the elegance and grace of Fred Astaire who is better known as Said Salah El Din Elnashaie, the thief. You are too stupid, too dumb and too mad for anyone to answer your trash. Just for your knowledge since you suffer from amnesia, have a good look at your ugly self in the truth about Said Elnashaie: www://http:saidelnashaie.blogspot.com Goran wrote on Jan. 19, 2010 @ 11:08 GMT If my memory serves me right, an Egyptian Professor of Engineering and Theoretical Physics, M.S. El Naschie was the first to predict that elementary random cantor sets which possess the golden ratio as a Hausdorff dimension are the fundamental building blocks of quantum mechanics and consequently high energy physics or more generally Nature. If I remember correctly scores of the members of the mainstream and respectable core from self-appointed voluntary opposition to anything which is new mocked Mohamed El Naschie on this isoteric conclusion with unprecedented viciousness. If the experimental discovery of the golden mean in quantum theory is correct then it is time to give this man as well as his colleagues, students and supporters the apology they deserve and start a serious sober and constructive discussion about the harmony and perfection of Nature at the fundamental level. A recent book by Alexei Stakhov bears witness to the importance of the golden mean in art and science and discusses the work of El Naschie at length. The work has just appeared in World Scientific with the title The Mathematics of Harmony, if I am not mistaken. Larssy wrote on Jan. 31, 2010 @ 11:14 GMT After the experimental discovery of the golden mean in quantum mechanics there is no room anymore for conventional skepticism. Those who think in conventional terms that golden mean base quantum mechanics is pseudoscience are themselves pseudo scientists. You could say pseudoscience if we are still talking about a theory. On the other hand to deny experimental result confirming the theoretical work of dozens of researchers is pseudo philosophy per se. The golden mean was discovered in relativity by Sigalotti. It is the basis of the first rational explanation of the two slit experiment by the Egyptian Mohamed El Naschie. It underpins high energy physics as discussed by Slovenian Crnjac, Chinese Ji Huan He as well as many of their associates. El Naschie presented the first complete theory of unification based on golden geometry and golden quantum field theory. Golden geometry and topology was developed in Romania by two mathematicians. A recent magnificent book by a noted Soviet scientist Alexei Stakhov bears witness for the reality and theoretical soundness of the golden mean quantum mechanics. There will be always those who confuse rigorousness with a stubborn narrow mindedness. Those who still are able to claim that anything to do with the golden mean is esoteric and pseudo science is incarnation of narrow-mindedness masquerading in the form of stubborn mathematical rigor. Jessica wrote on Feb. 5, 2010 @ 12:02 GMT Nature is a true victim of an alliance of evil. Mohamed El Naschie is without a trace of a doubt the most original scientist since Newton and Einstein. He is a natural talent. Suffice to know that he never formally studied physics or mathematics. Never the less his impact on science is incredible. Within ten years his scientific impact went from 0.2 per cent to 35 per cent. To appreciate this in a more tangible way you should read the recent book The Mathematics of Harmony by academician Prof. Alexey Stakhov. This book just appeared in World Scientific and has already been nominated for a possible Nobel Prize by Gennady Shypov and Yuri Mitropolsky as you can read on the back of the cover. Another book where El Naschie’s cosmology is discussed on page 180 is The Pea and The Sun by Leonard M. Wapner, published in 2005 by A.K. Peters Ltd, Wellesley, Massachusetts, USA. The book is a testament of the boldness and originality of El Naschie who used for the first time the Banach-Tarski theorem to elucidate the coming of the universe from nothingness. Mohamed El Naschie’s theory is now a fact. It is well known that he found the golden mean to be the basis of quantum mechanics. He was mercilessly mocked for this by the establishment for using something as esoteric as the golden mean in science. The joke is now on them because the establishment in Helm Holz Inst. and the University of Oxford have just found the golden mean in quantum mechanics experimentally a couple of weeks ago. Ironically this work is going to be published in Science which is the prime competitor of Nature. Mohamed El Naschie is probably the most envied scientist in the history of science. The reason is that he committed three sins wrapped up in a forth one. He is very affluent and never needed to beg for funding. He has a very happy family life. He is loved by everybody who knows him. This three attributes are then wrapped up in an extremely naïve and straight forward character which many charlatans used to attack him without his realization. The worst attack came from some of his closest so called friends. These friends are in his native country Egypt as well as Holland and unfortunately England. These friends conspired with a well known Nobel laureate in Experimental Chemistry to pressure Elsevier to shut down Chaos, Solitons & Fractals. When they did not succeed they enlisted the assistance of several subsidiaries of the world’s largest publisher, Macmillan. The tabloid article in Nature is just one of several others. It is the worst of them all. I do not need to repeat the details here because you will read it all in the transcript of the trial from the High Court in London. I sincerely hope Mohamed El Naschie wins his case so that this institutionalized bullying of large institutions will be dismantled. It will be the first time that a professor brings a multibillion institution to its knees using the simple sword of truth in the Courts of Justice. Manny wrote on Feb. 6, 2010 @ 12:31 GMT I am pleased that the truth has prevailed. Nature is now accused of trying to undermine Mohamed El Naschie deliberately. This accusation is not frivolous. How else can we explain the blind vicious attack by certain doubtful blogs on the golden mean work of El Naschie and how Quirin Schiermeier the journalist working for Nature utilized these vicious attacks to write a completely unacceptable article in Nature. Then came the heavenly justice when a German professor von Storch complained on his blog that the Nature article of Schiermeier deliberately misquoted him. He was gentle enough to say that the harm was not great. However in principle the harm could have been great. No one has the right to smear the reputation of anyone whether deliberately or recklessly due to irresponsible journalism. Now to the burning scientific question. How does the golden mean enter into quantum mechanics. The answer is as simple as it is ingenious. Mohamed El Naschie reformulates quantum mechanics in spacetime following the same concepts used by Richard Feynman as well the classical work of Einstein. Since the building blocks of spacetime are his elementary random Cantor sets and because these random Cantor sets possess the golden mean as a Hausdorff dimension, the golden mean slips into the fundaments of quantum mechanics. Nothing that quantum mechanics is the most fundamental theory upon which science is based, the golden mean could rightly be described as the basis of science. From this reasoning the ideas which Ed Nash expressed in his previous comment follows effortlessly. Brad wrote on Feb. 7, 2010 @ 20:37 GMT It is important to appreciate first what the golden mean means in classical mechanics in order to appreciate how Mohamed El Naschie used it in quantum mechanics. It all starts with the KAM theorem. This is an acronym for Kolmogorov Arnold Moser theorem named after the three eminent scientists. Very loosely speaking the theorem means that the stability of a Hamiltonian orbit in phase space depends on the irrationality of the winding number. Hamiltonian systems are frictionless. That would normally mean that they are extremely unstable. By design or providence nature found a mathematical way of endowing this orbit with a mathematical friction to replace the physical friction. It is the irrationality of the winding number which plays the role of friction. The more the winding number is irrational, the more the corresponding orbit is stable. It is a trivial fact and a well known mathematical one that the golden mean is the most irrational number that there is. Consequently anything which persists as long as possible must be connected as near as possible to a golden mean winding number. Realizing these facts Mohamed El Naschie did two things. Using infinite dimensional topology he converted the non classical quantum mechanics to a classical version in infinite dimensional space. Subsequently he reasoned that the elementary particles which we observe must be sufficiently stable to be observed. This stability he attributes to the golden mean. That is how the golden mean came to be the basis of the mass spectrum of elementary particles. The mathematics cannot be explained here but believe me it is extremely simple. Traditional theoretical physicists have become used to highly complex computations to the extent that they cannot understand simple calculations. Consequently most but not all of them could not understand the simplicity of El Naschie’s theory because it was not familiar to them. Now that the golden mean has been discovered experimentally in Helm Holz Inst. in Germany in cooperation with the University of Oxford, England traditional physicists will be forced to reconsider the situation. Undoubtedly they will start with the familiar but…. but…. but…. However they will not be able to bury these hard core experimental results. They are more likely to hide their heads in the sand like the ostrich but they will not be able to turn back the hands of the clock. Of course there is always the ingenious if highly dishonest approach of some people whose names I do not want to mention here. These people mocked El Naschie on the N-Category Café until they understood that the man was talking sense which their hate made them mistake for nonsense. One of them whose name I will also not mention went as a guest lecturer to a Scottish University in the UK and had the nerve to give a lecture entitled My favorable numbers. This shameless person repeated many of El Naschie’s reasoning and declared the golden mean to be his favorable number although one or two months earlier he was filling papers with jokes about El Naschie and his golden mean. It is a sad day when scientists start acting like charlatans in order to snatch the results of his colleagues. If I am mistaken then I should see many of those who were writing in the N-Category Café making formal apologies to their readers. This is the real integrity of a scientist. This is the real scientific integrity which came under attack. This is the real story which the President of SCIAM should have addressed instead of the nonsense which people keep repeating and attributing it to SCIAM in order to remain on the safe side and save their precious little necks from the charge of defamation and the associated legal procedure. Mark wrote on Feb. 12, 2010 @ 14:46 GMT Mohamed El Naschie did not only discover the golden mean as a basis of the geometry and topology required by quantum mechanics spacetime. He did more than that. He is the first to derive a transfinite E8 exceptional symmetry group. Using his technique of transfinite correction he produced an analogue to the Hausdorff dimension but this time for the exceptional Lie symmetry group. For instance the exact dimension of E8 is not 248 but a slightly smaller value. You can easily derive it from the E8 E8 by multiplying the 496 by 3 plus the golden mean. This gives the exact value which is minutely less than 496. This minute difference guarantees area preservedness. That way the system remains Hamiltonian although it has a mathematical friction caused by the irrationality of the golden mean. El Naschie’s theory is extremely beautiful and although very simple, it is very subtle and one has to pay attention to things which traditional theoretical physicists working in high energy physics are used to glossing over. The experimental discovery of the golden mean leaves no doubt any more about the correctness of El Naschie’s theory. Anonymous replied on Feb. 12, 2010 @ 21:52 GMT Mark, Yes El naschie is a real spark in the human written history. Please don't forget the well experimentally verified results about fiber wool pioneered by Huan. Who showed that the Hausdorff dimension of fiber wool is to be about 4.2325, very close to El Naschie’s E-infinity dimension, 4.2360. According to Huan this reveals an optimal structure for wool fibers. This is an easy proved fact and it doesn't need high energy. Also the extra ordinary talent of El naschie in revealing a deep connection between double slit experiment and particle physics. Again his extraordinary ability in doing simple calculations and getting non-perturbative results. While ordinary people can get results by using supper computer in one year, El naschie get the same results straight forward by counting on his fingers. Again with a simple rope with knots El naschie could derive the spectrum of possible Elementary particles, and realy this the discovery of the century. Any one can just bring a rope with knots and could easily testify El naschie's conjecture. El naschie may be the greatest thinker in the history of mankind and his theory is the most important discovery since the invention of wheel. Morsy wrote on Feb. 13, 2010 @ 17:46 GMT Mr Anonymous, you are not anonymous. You are one of the evil trios and jealousy will not get you anywhere. In the laboratory of evil thoughts, they could not possibly find a more twisted guinea pig than Said elnashaie, John Baez and Christoph Drosser. You disgraced the good tradition of Nature. Zewail and his clique are letting you down. So here you are crying for help from the holding company McMillan. Andreas wrote on Feb. 13, 2010 @ 17:52 GMT Morsy you do not know how right your comments are. The repetition of the science magazine Nature is mud. Some now call it Nature defamation weekly. They are levied by the negative propaganda they have in Egypt. They are receiving insults in Egyptian press on a daily basis. There is nothing they can do except suing El Naschie in Egypt. That would be the day for Mohamed El Naschie. McMillan may have billions but this will count virtually as nothing compared to El Naschie's connections in Egypt. What a bunch of idiots. They editor of chief of Nature must be a real sucker. One of his editors Querein Schermeier took him for a ride. Or did he? Who knows. It may be all due to Ahmed Zewail. The connection between Hany Helal and Elsevier and the money which changed hands. Only time will tell. I am thrilled to see the end of this idiotic saga. Khalifa wrote on Feb. 15, 2010 @ 14:21 GMT To the Blogmaster of L'affaire El Naschie You have not updated your readers since August. In the meantime Nature is facing High Court proceedings for defamation of Mohamed El Naschie. John Baez is pretending to be interested in anything else but El Naschie and the N-Category Café pretends it has never said anything negative about El Naschie. More important than all of that, the golden mean was experimentally verified as a pillar of quantum mechanics by the leading Helmholz Institute in Germany in cooperation with the University of Oxford and the University of Bristol. This is direct indisputable confirmation of El Naschie’s theory about the transfinite golden mean geometry of spacetime. I am sure you will not publish these remarks because it does not fit into the grand design set up by those who have nothing in mind except the complete assassination of the reputation of Mohamed El Naschie for no other reasons except racial and religious discrimination. Ray Munroe wrote on Feb. 18, 2010 @ 22:57 GMT Dear Sockpuppets on both sides - friendly and unfriendly, Check out this FQXi discussion between REAL PEOPLE: Dr. Ray Munroe, Georgina Parry, Steve Dufourny, and Tom H Ray about the Golden Ratio. Have Fun! Ray Ed Nash wrote on Feb. 19, 2010 @ 21:21 GMT Now you can rest assured that E8 and the golden mean are real physics. The Helmholtz Inst. in Germany in cooperation with the University of Oxford and the Bristol University as well as Appleton Laboratory found experimentally the golden mean in quantum mechanics. Long ago El Naschie married E8 and the golden mean into the transfinite E8 exceptional Lie group. To obtain the dimension you simply multiply the exact theoretical inverse fine structure constant with three plus phi where phi is the golden mean 0.618033989. You divide the result with two and you get the dimension which is slightly less than 248. This is all explained in many papers published in Chaos, Solitons & Fractals. This journal being unique, successful, daring and avante garde is now shut down. The order to shut down the journal came from you know who. I am sure no one is particularly surprised when you read the entire history of this saga starting from the work of Lisi passing by the Scientific American Renate Loll paper and finally landing in the High Court in London in a Writ issued against Nature. You can read about this Writ in Sarah Limbrick’s blog. Jason wrote on Feb. 21, 2010 @ 21:54 GMT Ed Nash, The order to shut down Chaos, Solitons and Fractals came from who? Jason wrote on Feb. 22, 2010 @ 03:28 GMT Come on, Ed Nash. I know more than the average person about El Naschie, and still I have no idea who you're talking about as "you know who". Throw us a bone, here fella. Chen wrote on Feb. 23, 2010 @ 17:14 GMT Anyone who would like for whatever reason to doubt the priority of Mohamed El Naschie in discovering the golden mean as the basis of quantum geometry and thus quantum mechanics, should read the following three papers in the chronological order: First, The Golden Mean in Quantum Geometry, Knot Theory and Related Topics, published in Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, vol, 10, No 8, pp. 1303-1307, 1999. Second, Superstrings, Knots and Non-Commutative Geometry in E Infinity Space, published in the International Journal of Theoretical Physics, Vol. 37, No. 12, 1998. Third, On a class of general theories for high energy particle physics, published in Chaos, Solitons & Fractals 14(2002) 649-668. Mohamed El Naschie was ahead of everybody else in this field for at least fifteen years. Those who do not want to admit the truth are betrayals of the truth. Such people can never call themselves scientists. spartan wrote on Mar. 2, 2010 @ 18:59 GMT I thought trash is recognized by anybody as trash. I did not think that a magazine like Nature should reduce its role in the scientific community to writing defamatory articles excused by the existence of trash. This is would be natural trash. As far as the libel case is concerned the important thing is that the journalist lied. He willfully and intentionally gave false information. Schiermeier did not lie for the first time and neither Christoph Drosser. They have a history of giving false information. This is clear from the complaint made against Nature and against Schiermeier in particular from other scientists. The question is why did you single out Mohamed El Naschie? Mohamed El Naschie was a member of the mainstream all his life. Of course he is an engineering scientist as well as being a Moslem. I do not think Nature will find that sufficient grounds for finding him eccentric. There is much that does not meet the eyes here. Remember the discovery of the golden mean in the laboratory by the Helmholtz Centre. Remember all the fuss that John Baez, a friend of Renate Loll, made about the golden mean. He said the trade mark of any crackpot was to write about the golden mean. A few months later when he at last understood what El Naschie was doing, he gave a lecture in Scotland called My Favorite Number. Without a trace of shame he singled out the number 8 and the golden mean as his favorite numbers. You should read this paper and admire the nerve of this guy or perhaps label him a crackpot! Anonymous wrote on Mar. 3, 2010 @ 22:14 GMT from http://martialculture.com/blog/2010/01/the-golden-ratio-and-quantum-mechanics/ El naschie is a real spark in the human written history, he is startling . Al his predictions based on E-infinity theory are well verified. Among many and just to name: 1-The well experimentally verified results about fiber wool pioneered by Huan. Who showed that the Hausdorff dimension of fiber wool is to be about 4.2325, very close to El Naschie’s E-infinity dimension, 4.2360. According to Huan this reveals an optimal structure for wool fibers. This is an easy proved fact and it doesn’t need high energy. Hierarchy of wool fibers and its interpretation using E-infinity theory Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, Volume 41, Issue 4, 30 August 2009, Pages 1839-1841 Ji-Huan He, Zhong-Fu Ren, Jie Fan, Lan Xu 2- A remarkable achievement of El naschie is his unique extra ordinary talent in revealing a deep connection between double slit experiment and particle physics. That is really a breakthrough in the field has never been acheived. 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 M.S. El Naschie 3- El naschie is gifted in doing simple calculations and getting non-perturbative results. While ordinary people can get results by using supper computer in a one year, El naschie get the same results straight forward by counting on his fingers without using computer at all. These are due his GOLDEN FINGERS. On quarks confinement and asymptotic freedom Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, Volume 37, Issue 5, September 2008, Pages 1289-1291 M.S. El Naschie Quarks confinement Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, Volume 37, Issue 1, July 2008, Pages 6-8 M.S. El Naschie 4- With a simple rope with knots El naschie could derive the spectrum of possible Elementary particles, and realy this is the discovery of the century. Any one can just bring a rope with knots and could easily testify El naschie’s conjecture. Fuzzy multi-instanton knots in the fabric of space–time and Dirac’s vacuum fluctuation Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, Volume 38, Issue 5, December 2008, Pages 1260-1268 El naschie may be the greatest thinker in the history of mankind and his theory is the most important discovery since the invention of wheel. El naschie maybe the most remarkable event after cosmic big bang. His theory can describe every thing after big bang and I’m sure El naschie will extend his theory to accommodate what has been before big bang. Please don’t wonder it is an E-infinity theory that could deal with such a long history of time. Ben wrote on Mar. 6, 2010 @ 17:31 GMT A few days ago I was accosted by an article entitled A multiverse of probabilities published in Physics World by the author Ben Freivogel (see p.40). I claim that the basic idea of the multiverse proposal is fractal. More precisely the idea is implicit in the work of Laurent Nottale and Garnet Ord and explicit in the work of M.S. El Naschie. If the readers could bear with me I would like to make this assertion plausible. A fractal implies infinity. In its simplest form it is the infinite ability of magnifying and zooming exactly as explained in the excellent World Scientific book of Nottale. A four dimensional fractal implies infinite numbers of concentric four dimensional spaces. Whether you think of the resulting structure as one Cantorian spacetime as presented by El Naschie or alternatively think of the structure as an infinite amount of four spacetimes connected together, it is only a matter of semantics. The way El Naschie adds probabilities together in an infinite series implies an infinite number of universes constituting a multiverse albeit an infinite one. The mathematics is very clear here. The simplest way to think of it is to put a four dimensional cube insider another four dimensional cube and so on ad infinitum. When you do the sums correctly which resembles a continued fracture, then you find that the final dimension is four plus the golden mean to the power three. E-infinity implies multiverse. The correctly weighted multiverse is a fractal spacetime with an expectation value for the topological dimension exactly equal four and an expectation value for the Hausdorff dimension exactly equal to four plus the golden mean to the power three. Some have suggested a connection to a Hilbert cube for instance Prof. Ji-Huan He from Shanghai. It is interesting to realize that there is now real experimental verification for the preceding theory. Finding the golden mean in quantum mechanics in the Helmholtz Centre in Berlin is a major discovery with incalculable consequences for the further development of fundamental physics. Nottale and Garnet Ord exactly as Richard Feynmann had the right haunch. Fractal spacetime is the answer. This is also obvious from the work of Tim Palmer which was published in the Royal Society a few months ago. Of course the establishment is not amused. Never the less science is not about being amused or not. Science is about being right. The New Scientist seems to have sensed the change of tide. Its newest edition carries the title Touching the multiverse, first hint that it really exists, Vol. 205, No. 2750. To be candid the idea is not that brand new. Feynmann’s path integral is the first version of this fast breaking idea. Everet’s multiuniverses theory which was championed by Murray Gellman is another version. However the discovery of the golden mean in the laboratory as a basis for quantum mechanics puts the whole thing in a completely new perspective. We are not philosophizing or theoretizing. The golden mean and thus El Naschie’s E-infinity theory is not a mere theory any more. You could say Nottale, Ord and El Naschie following Feynman discovered the real building blocks of quantum spacetime. These building blocks for which Gerard ‘tHooft searched for a long time are elementary random Cantor sets with a golden mean as a Hausdorff dimension. Similar qualitative ideas not using the quantitative golden mean approach is due to Fay Dowker and are called partially ordered sets. To go deeper than that in this theory will take us too far. I just wanted to give the unbiased reader a taste of the deep meaning of Nottale’s theory of fractal spacetime and what it really implies. Anonymous replied on Mar. 7, 2010 @ 07:42 GMT [A repeat post repeated here because it was in the orignal thread.] from http://martialculture.com/blog/2010/01/the-golden-ratio-and-quantum-mechanics/ El naschie is a real spark in the human written history, he is startling . Al his predictions based on E-infinity theory are well verified. Among many and just to name: 1-The well experimentally verified results about fiber wool pioneered by Huan. Who showed that the Hausdorff dimension of fiber wool is to be about 4.2325, very close to El Naschie’s E-infinity dimension, 4.2360. According to Huan this reveals an optimal structure for wool fibers. This is an easy proved fact and it doesn’t need high energy. Hierarchy of wool fibers and its interpretation using E-infinity theory Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, Volume 41, Issue 4, 30 August 2009, Pages 1839-1841 Ji-Huan He, Zhong-Fu Ren, Jie Fan, Lan Xu 2- A remarkable achievement of El naschie is his unique extra ordinary talent in revealing a deep connection between double slit experiment and particle physics. That is really a breakthrough in the field has never been acheived. 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 M.S. El Naschie 3- El naschie is gifted in doing simple calculations and getting non-perturbative results. While ordinary people can get results by using supper computer in a one year, El naschie get the same results straight forward by counting on his fingers without using computer at all. These are due his GOLDEN FINGERS. On quarks confinement and asymptotic freedom Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, Volume 37, Issue 5, September 2008, Pages 1289-1291 M.S. El Naschie Quarks confinement Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, Volume 37, Issue 1, July 2008, Pages 6-8 M.S. El Naschie 4- With a simple rope with knots El naschie could derive the spectrum of possible Elementary particles, and realy this is the discovery of the century. Any one can just bring a rope with knots and could easily testify El naschie’s conjecture. Fuzzy multi-instanton knots in the fabric of space–time and Dirac’s vacuum fluctuation Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, Volume 38, Issue 5, December 2008, Pages 1260-1268 El naschie may be the greatest thinker in the history of mankind and his theory is the most important discovery since the invention of wheel. El naschie maybe the most remarkable event after cosmic big bang. His theory can describe every thing after big bang and I’m sure El naschie will extend his theory to accommodate what has been before big bang. Please don’t wonder it is an E-infinity theory that could deal with such a long history of time. Annonymous wrote on Mar. 8, 2010 @ 14:50 GMT The proposition that E-infinity people should be responsible for El Naschie Watch does not stand scrutiny. Jason is an idiot none the less. He is an idiot used as a puppet on a string. The people behind him are true criminals trying to obscure the truth. That is the affect of the High Court in London. I had a look at the new picture that Jason put in his site. The poor idiot is reinforcing El Naschie’s image. I agree it is a paradox. He dug out yet another picture of El Naschie with yet another Nobel laureate. I see a beaming Nobel laureate Horst Stroemer [sic. Horst Ludwig Störmer, Nobel 1998, physics] being photographed together with an unusually handsome young man who seems to be from Middle Eastern origin. I guess this is El Naschie although he looks much younger than I thought. In the same picture you have a very attractive young lady standing beside him as well as Professor Martienssen and a stocky fat man, I guess Prof. Walter. I have never seen these pictures before and El Naschie should thank Jason for bringing it to the wider attention of the educated public if that was his intention. It is difficult to understand what the intention of an insect is. I heard somebody say calling Jason bacteria is an insult to the bacteria. I hope the immune system of the healthy reader of this site is strong enough to stand these concentrated attacks of germs. E-infinity wrote on Mar. 9, 2010 @ 18:25 GMT To: Researchers working on El Naschie E-infinity Cantorian-fractal spacetime theory of quantum high energy physics. Dear All, Even the most gullible, unsuspecting and least inclined to a conspiracy theory must be asking themselves by now why all this viscous attack not only against E-infinity and fractal spacetime as a theory but far worse against Prof. Ji-Huan He, L. Marek-Crnjac, Prof. Mohamed El Naschie, Gerardo Iovane and in fact every single member of the E-infinity group. Who is behind all that? Who is behind El Naschie Watch and the daily hundreds of perverted viscous comments aimed at any and everybody who has anything good to say about us, particularly Prof. El Naschie and Prof. He? Is it the establishment and what kind of establishment is this which is scared to death from a couple of simple equations and the word fractal spacetime? If I did not know better I would think that a Cantor set is where the devil himself lives or it is a code name similar to D-day or Dessert Storm only directed towards theoretical physics. In what follows I would like to explain to you in some detail that we have achieved a great deal with our theory. The work of Goldfain, Mohamed El Naschie and before them Nottale and Ord and Richard Feynman were all not in vain. I would like to explain that we are on the verge of a great truth and paradigm shift in physics. Some unteachable elements of the establishment are resorting to methods far away from science which failed in the past to prevent the inevitable. Others more cunning are working hard to translate our terminology to another terminology. The famous plagiarism which took place in Scientific American is only one of the very early and visible examples of this cunningness which is in reality lack of scientific honor as aptly described by one of us in a letter to the people concerned. Let me start by first counting the unshakable final results which we have achieved on a few points and then we will move from there to discuss the wider picture and the experimental facts which are coming in daily. In brief we found the following results which will endure any future discoveries and could be counted as the absolutely secured part of what we have done. 1. The geometry of micro spacetime is best described by a fractal. This is the result of the work of Garnet Ord and Laurent Nottale following the pioneering idea of Richard Feynman and his path integral method. 2. The building blocks of spacetime are elementary random Cantor sets. The Hausdorff dimension of these elementary random Cantor sets is the golden mean. By varying the resolution you can obtain everything you want from an infinite collection of these Cantor sets. This is the essence of the work of Mohamed El Naschie, L. Crnjac, Ji-Huan He and also G. Iovane. 3. The expectation value for the Hausdorff dimension is 4 plus the golden mean to the power of three. This is 4.23606799. The expectation value for the topological dimension is exactly 4. The formal dimensionality is however infinite. This will bring us nearer to the theory of multiverse as I will explain later. 4. The most fundamental symmetry groups are the exceptional Lie symmetry groups. These are 8 in all forming a family. The most important member of this family is E8. What is important however is that the sum over all exceptional Lie symmetry group leads to a probability measure which is consistent with the random Cantor sets and its golden mean dimension. The sum of the dimensions of all eight groups was shown by El Naschie to give a total dimension equal 4 ¬? ?=548 where ¬? ? = 137. 5. You can extend summing of an exceptional Lie group to compact and non-compact exceptional Lie groups and find 17 of them. The sum of all dimensions was shown by El Naschie to be 5? ?=685. This theory led to speculation about an even larger symmetry group, namely E12 which is more important than the recently discovered E10 and E11 but I will not consider this part of secured knowledge and I will stop here, mentioning only that Ray Munroe was the first to find E12 before El Naschie. As for the experimental verification we now have a few extremely important ones: 1. Indication of a Cantorian spacetime and a fractal spacetime coming from an analysis of the cosmic rays and microwave background radiation. The expert on the first is Goldfain and on the second Mohamed El Naschie and you can consult their publications on this. However there are many results independent of our group confirming the same and it would be great if Goldfain could write a report for us all on this for internal use on our blog. 2. The discovery of E8 in nanostructures and the golden mean in quantum mechanics which was recently made public by the Helmholtz Center in Germany is the most definite result confirming Cantorian spacetime geometry experimentally. I say this is the tip of the iceberg. From now on you will see the golden mean mushrooming everywhere in quantum mechanics and high energy physics. Under these circumstances many people became worried and anxious that a group like ours, not considered to be specialists in mathematical physics and high energy particle physics should have made such a major step forwards and been able to predict the masses of elementary particles and the value of fundamental constants with such precision and ease. The frustration is to a certain extent understandable and the reason is the following. 1. Garnet Ord and Nottale did not use set theory per se. Mohamed El Naschie was also not the first to propose set theory in quantum mechanics and high energy physics. The first impulse came from somewhere completely different. They came from David Finkelstein and Carl Friedrich von Weizsaker. The two great scientists were not interested in details. However Stanley Gudder in the USA and his school as well as Fay Dowker in England and her collaborators felt that partially ordered sets could solve the problem of quantum mechanics. They were rather near but not quite there because they had no simple way of performing real quantitative calculations. Far better suited to quantum mechanics are random Cantor sets. When you use them you have the golden mean. And when you use the golden mean then you have at your hand an unrivalled number system which can handle any complex computation with unheard of simplicity. This was Mohamed El Naschie’s good luck or misfortune. By pure accident or providence El Naschie stumbled on a basic problem in fundamental mathematics. Basing your number system on the irrational number and the irrational golden mean system you can see the world with new eyes with unheard of simplicity. The recent book by Alexey Stakhov published in World Scientific under the title The Mathematics of Harmony is a profound meditation on this theme. Chaos, Solitons & Fractals had the honor of publishing the larger part of Prof. Stakhov’s work. I think when certain elements in the establishment realize that we surpassed everybody else, they panicked. 2. When certain elements of the establishment panicked, they published the paper in Scientific American in 2008. To overcome the problem of not having the golden mean they used the most powerful existing new generation of computers and pretended to use their expression, that they found the holy grail of theoretical physics by calculating the four dimensionalities of spacetime from first principles using a desktop computer. One of our associates joked about them by calculating the same dimension using a pocket calculator. In fact using the golden mean you can find everything by counting on your fingers, that is if you know the rules of the golden mean arithmetic. The rest is history and you can read it on the comments of this work in Scientific American. 3. An exceptional member of the mainstream who does not normally work in quantum mechanics is Prof. Tim Palmer of the University of Oxford. This professor realized the importance of fractals for quantum mechanics. His first paper did not refer to our group at all. Later on he revised his stance and he referred to Garnet Ord, Laurent Nottale and Mohamed El Naschie on the first page of his revised ArXived paper. Later on when this paper appeared in the Royal Society, the three names were relegated to the very rear of the paper. Never the less, the man at least had sufficient objectivity to acknowledge our priority. Of course he should have noticed that there is no difference between our work using Rene Thom/El Naschie VAK and his proposal. Spacetime and phase space are exchangeable at this high energy where time is spatialized. Anyway this was at least one of the establishment acknowledging that we were there first. On a personal level we have the greatest respect for Prof. Tim Palmer who is an exceptional meteorological scientist. 4. There is at least one earlier attempt to use elements out of our work and overlook mentioning our group. The first which comes to my mind is that of Dr. Garrett Lisi. He is not a mainstream scientist at all but he was supported by some people from Perimeter Inst. in Canada. Needless to say, most of what Lisi wrote about E8 was well known to us long ago and was published in Chaos, Solitons & Fractals years before Lisi’s paper. Of course the establishment in general neither likes Lisi’s nor our work and thus we and Lisi were equal although we were more equal than Lisi in being disliked by the establishment for reasons which have no scientific basis. 5. Here I must now mention the discovery of the important utility of the multiverse. The objective of this comment is really to talk about this subject. What I have written so far was just a summary of the past. I would like to show clearly that the multiverse theory is nothing but a new label for our Cantorian spacetime theory particularly when we couple it with the holographic principle of ‘tHooft. ON THE EQUIVALENCE BETWEEN THE MULTIVERSE THEORY OF RAPHAEL BOUSSO AND E-INFINITY THEORY A multiverse is a universe with an infinite number of pocket universes. Please note that the most important thing here is infinity. Fractal spacetime in the E-infinity version is an infinite dimensional universe. To avoid contradictions and inconsistencies, Bousso introduced causal patch measures. This measure corresponds to the relative topological probability used in E-infinity theory. However the really interesting point comes when you apply to both theories the holographic principle. You recall from E-infinity theory that the holographic manifold of E-infinity is Klein’s modular curve. This curve has 336 triangles. These 336 correspond to SL 2,7 which constitutes 336 isometries in two dimensions being the surface. They also correspond to 336 kissing points of 10 dimensional spheres. This in turn corresponds to 336 quantum curvatures in 8 dimensions. You can think of the 336 of Klein’s modular curve as cutting the 10 dimensional spaces of the kissing spheres and flattening them to a surface. You see know the equivalence between particle like states and isometries. Since the kissing points are the points of interactions, they can be regarded as messenger particles or massless gauge bosons. In fact following the holographic principle, they represent all that is going to be particle physics of the standard model later on at lower energy. To see the connection you just compare the 496 of E8 E8 of super string theory to the sum of the electromagnetism as represented by the 137 alpha bar when you add to it Einstein’s gravity in four dimensions which is 20 and the 336 of particle physics. Now you see that it does not completely add up. There are 3 missing. This 3 can be taken care of in two ways. Either you think of them as the only electromagnetic photons which are massive, namely W minus, W plus and Z zero. Thus we have 3 plus 336 equal 339. Plus 137 plus 20 which exactly matches the 496 of super strings as should be. But there is a better geometrical way to look at that which agrees exactly with the holographic multiverse interpretation of Raphael Bousso. Remember that we have to compactify Klein’s modular curve to come to a picture similar to that of Escher’s devil and angel. This is the hyperbolic structure well known from hyperbolic geometry. To reach the boundary we could walk for ever. If there is something like an outside observer he will find that we are nearing the boundary but becoming slower and slower and never ever reach the boundary which lies at infinity. Thus although we have a finite area, we have infinite distance to the boundary. If we identify this infinite distance with infinite time then our theory becomes identical to that of Bousso. The famous chaos scientist Otto Rössler compared the situation to a pseudo sphere of a certain cosmological model. In other words, Bousso’s theory, probably unknowingly, adopts words for word our theory and there is a one to one correspondence between our terminology and the new terminology. E-infinity is a multiverse theory. It always was and it will always be. You see we are at the cutting edge of everything in theoretical physics. In addition we can calculate things and not only philosophize about it. That is why some find El Naschie more than irritating and are extremely upset that we have been supporting him because quite honestly, without this help, he could not have achieved anything. In fact without our moral support he would not have survived the last operation which he had in London. We must think about all these things and develop them further and keep each other informed. Let us, following Leo Tolstoy, try to forgive our opponents and wish them peace of their soul so that they can leave us in peace to complete our work. Best wishes to everyone, E-Infinity Communication Singh wrote on Mar. 10, 2010 @ 19:19 GMT The experimental discovery of the golden mean should come as no surprise to anyone who is familiar with the VAK. The VAK attractor of Kolomogorov is a conjecture made by the great French topologist Rene Thom. It is nothing more than applying KAM theorem to quantum mechanic. KAM theorem states that the most stable stationary states which are called periodic orbits correspond to the most irrational winding numbers. The most irrational number is the golden mean. Applied to quantum mechanics, this means that the most stable particle which can be observed experimentally will relate to the golden mean. That is all folks. You see we theoretical physicists have always a minimum of new ideas. Our ideas are always extremely simple. We tend to prefer making very difficult computations rather than strenuous thinking using new ideas. All what distinguishes Mohamed El Naschie from the rest of us is that he was less lazy with regards to new ideas and extremely lazy when it comes to strenuous computations. That is how he came to the VAK and he tried it out. The discovery of the golden mean in quantum mechanic in Helmholtz Centre must be a triumph for the VAK. It is not a triumph for Mohamed El Naschie because no one person has ever done anything on his own. It is always the collective effort of humanity. If Rene Thom would be alive today, he would have bagged a Nobel Prize in physics besides his field medal in mathematics. If you do not want to give Mohamed El Naschie a prize because he is a Muslim, I assure you many Christians, Jews as well as atheists worked on the VAK. I am sure you will find somebody suitable who is not offensive to the establishment to give a Nobel Prize to for solving the mystery of quantum mechanics. Lawrence B. Crowell replied on Mar. 11, 2010 @ 03:08 GMT M Singh, I am not sure what a VAK attractor is. A reference might be of interest. El Naschie might have some insight into things, but I think if so then your comment about laziness might be in order. He does not seem to offer much detail or proof. Cheers LC E-infinity wrote on Mar. 10, 2010 @ 23:38 GMT E-infinity communication No. 2 Why the golden mean? Dear All, Encouraged by the balanced and civilized remark of Dr. Munroe we will attempt to update you on anything new in E-infinity which comes to our attention and answer any reasonable well posed question which anyone of you has as far as we can. We hope that arguments and tone will remain within what you would do in a scientific conference or a discussion in a learned journal. By all means you can make the odd witty remark or polite joke. Just consider that you are not anonymous and that you are responsible for what you are saying. Science is a worthwhile and respectable endeavor. Even non religious people do not commit scandalous actions in a house of worship whether it is a church, synagogue, mosque or a budhist temple. Science is a kind of temple for us scientists and even if you do not believe in that, please out of respect to other believers, leave this site for science and let us discuss science without resorting to personal hidden agendas, irrational hate or jealousy and inferiority complexes. If you would love to see a trial you will have a long one in the High Court of London. Here we talk only about science. Thank you for understanding and now I can move to the next item. I would like to give here a plausibility explanation of why the golden mean popped up in quantum mechanics. To understand our point of view you must know a little bit of nonlinear dynamics. The most important thing which you have to know in that respect is the KAM theorem. For instance you could consult a book by Heinz Georg Schuster called Deterministic Chaos, published by VCH Verlag, 1989 but any other book on nonlinear dynamics would do. KAM is an acrynomn relating to the name Kolomogorov, Arnold and Moser, the three mathematicians who developed it. Loosely speaking it states that the last periodic orbit which can be destroyed by perturbation is the one which has the most irrational winding number. You can think of a winding number as the ratio of two frequencies as in resonance. The more irrational the winding number is, the more stable the orbit is. Since there is nothing more irrational than the golden mean because it is the least well approximated by a rational as you can see from continued fraction expansion it follows then that this orbit is the most stable. The stationary states which can be observed experimentally is therefore connected as close as possible to the golden mean. You can think of elementary particles as a stationary state of quantum mechanics. When you connect quantum mechanics to KAM then you are effectively making Rene Thom’s VAK hypothesis. Rene Thom conjectured that the Hamiltonian quantum mechanics has a form of attraction although it is non-dissipative and conservative. This strange attraction has a vague resemblance to strange attractors of dissipative systems. That is why it was called the vague attractor of Kologomorov by Rene Thom. El Naschie’s work and the subsequent experimental confirmation of the golden mean in quantum mechanics in the Helmholtz Centre is the proof that the VAK conjecture is correct. You see this is all mathematically perfect and correct but of course we are extending mathematics to physics. When ever you extend mathematics to physics you leave the secure ground of absolute logic and enter into the messy realm of reality. But that is why theoretical physics is for us far more interesting than pure mathematics. In theoretical physics you need not only maths but something more difficult to pin down given to man by God if I may say so and this thing is called intuition. That is the reason why the golden mean will keep coming out in every measurement of quantum mechanical phenomena. Thank you for your patience and we await your questions if you have any before we move to the next point. E-infinity communication. Ray Munroe replied on Mar. 11, 2010 @ 14:26 GMT Dear E-Infinity, I would first like to state that I am a huge fan of the Golden Ratio. The Golden Ratio arises out of pentagonal symmetries such as the 3-D Icosahedron, the 4-D H4 120/600-cell, and the 8-D E8 Gosset lattice (this example may explain the Helmholtz Center's results adequately enough, please see A.B. Zamolodchikov, International Journal of Modern Physics A, Vol. 4, No. 16 (1989) pp. 4235-4248). Though the mathematical community has not embraced the concept of E-Infinity, 685 = 5x137 also appears to have pentagonal symmetries. By inscribing pentagrams within the center pentagons of pentagrams ad infinitum, we fill all of 2-D space with golden pentagrams. Likewise, we can fill all of 2-D space with Fibonacci rectangles ad infinitum. There are significant similarities between Fibonacci's sequence and the Golden Ratio. Both concepts are simple, but which is more fundamental? Fibonacci's sequence starts out 1,1,2,3,5,8,13,21,34,..., and the ratio of consecuative sequence numbers approaches 1.618... (the inverse of the number .618... that El Naschie uses so heavily) 3/2~5/3~8/5~13/8~21/13~34/21...-> 1.618... If the Golden Ratio is more fundamental than Fibonacci's sequence, then this implies that all of reality has a 'fractal' nature. If Fibonacci's Sequence is more fundamental than the Golden Ratio, then this implies that integers and 'fractals' are both important. Which reality do we choose? If all of reality has a fractal nature, then we don't live in 4-D Spacetime, but rather, in some bizarre 4+'fractal'-D Spacetime. Would the LHC or any of our great Astrophysical experiments be able to determine this 'fractal dimensionality'? Considering the Billions of Dollars and Euros that we spend on experimental physics, it would be ironic if our best measure of reality comes from the 'fractal dimensionality' of wool fibers. That would be a revolution that the experimental community would almost unanamously want to crush. Personally, I don't have a dog in that fight. You said "Loosely speaking it states that the last periodic orbit which can be destroyed by perturbation is the one which has the most irrational winding number. You can think of a winding number as the ratio of two frequencies as in resonance. The more irrational the winding number is, the more stable the orbit is. Since there is nothing more irrational than the golden mean because it is the least well approximated by a rational as you can see from continued fraction expansion it follows then that this orbit is the most stable. The stationary states which can be observed experimentally is therefore connected as close as possible to the golden mean." This is the crux of the issue at hand. The Golden Ratio can be well approximated by ratios of consecuative integers in Fibonacci's Sequence. For example, 34/21 = 1.619... is a decent approximation of the inverse Golden Ratio (1+SQRT(5))/2 = 1.61803398874989... But if we are approximating special irrational numbers by integers, then phi = .618 ~ 1 is not as good an approximation as e = 2.71828182845905... ~ 3 or as pi = 3.14159265358979... ~ 3. Another blogger said it, and the implication is that "Infinity exists because the Golden Ratio exists". If this is a true statement, then I would love to see a mathematical proof. This would be a pathway to understanding Black Hole 'singularities'. In my humble opinion, Infinity is not a physical phenomenon, but rather can be approximated by a power of Dirac's Large Number, 10^40. But if the Golden Ratio is the only way to a 'stable infinity' then this is an important result. I'm looking forward to your answers and more of these discussions. Have Fun! Ray Anonymous wrote on Mar. 11, 2010 @ 08:33 GMT El naschie is a real spark in the human written history, he is startling . Al his predictions based on E-infinity theory are well verified. Among many and just to name: 1-The well experimentally verified results about fiber wool pioneered by Huan. Who showed that the Hausdorff dimension of fiber wool is to be about 4.2325, very close to El Naschie’s E-infinity dimension, 4.2360. According to Huan this reveals an optimal structure for wool fibers. This is an easy proved fact and it doesn’t need high energy. Hierarchy of wool fibers and its interpretation using E-infinity theory Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, Volume 41, Issue 4, 30 August 2009, Pages 1839-1841 Ji-Huan He, Zhong-Fu Ren, Jie Fan, Lan Xu 2- A remarkable achievement of El naschie is his unique extra ordinary talent in revealing a deep connection between double slit experiment and particle physics. That is really a breakthrough in the field has never been acheived. 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 M.S. El Naschie 3- El naschie is gifted in doing simple calculations and getting non-perturbative results. While ordinary people can get results by using supper computer in a one year, El naschie get the same results straight forward by counting on his fingers without using computer at all. These are due his GOLDEN FINGERS. On quarks confinement and asymptotic freedom Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, Volume 37, Issue 5, September 2008, Pages 1289-1291 M.S. El Naschie Quarks confinement Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, Volume 37, Issue 1, July 2008, Pages 6-8 M.S. El Naschie 4- With a simple rope with knots El naschie could derive the spectrum of possible Elementary particles, and realy this is the discovery of the century. Any one can just bring a rope with knots and could easily testify El naschie’s conjecture. Fuzzy multi-instanton knots in the fabric of space–time and Dirac’s vacuum fluctuation Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, Volume 38, Issue 5, December 2008, Pages 1260-1268 El naschie may be the greatest thinker in the history of mankind and his theory is the most important discovery since the invention of wheel. El naschie maybe the most remarkable event after cosmic big bang. His theory can describe every thing after big bang and I’m sure El naschie will extend his theory to accommodate what has been before big bang. Please don’t wonder it is an E-infinity theory that could deal with such a long history of time. Anonymous wrote on Mar. 11, 2010 @ 08:49 GMT Finally, El naschie's sockpuppets and El naschie himself get smarter and at last learn something, and succeeded to write Helmholtz correctly. But unfortunately, they don't know physics nor math. I would like to draw their attention that the golden number appears also in the sunfolower but this is related to the most efficient way of packing florets in the sun flower. Dooes El naschie consider this a support of his E-infinity theory. I hope the great man will reply. E-Infinity wrote on Mar. 11, 2010 @ 15:48 GMT E-Infinity Communication No. 3 Further reasons why the golden mean? Dear Ray There may be a slight misunderstanding here. Irrationality of Phi is expressed by the fact that the fraction expansion involves only unity. In other words this is 1 divided by 1 plus 1 and 1 is divided again by 1 plus 1 and so on indefinitely. At infinity the result is the golden mean. Some call the inverse of the golden mean the golden mean. This is only semantics and totally irrelevant. We should also not loose sight of what we want to talk about. Whether the Fibonacci progression is more fundamental or the golden mean may be a question of interest to a number of theoreticians involved in a learned discourse. It is also irrelevant that John Baez had a vested interest to draw attention to the work involving the golden mean published by a Russian scientist in a far more restrictive area as compared to the fundamental generalization of E-Infinity. Important are only the facts that a fundamental theorem about stationary states relates elementary particles to the golden mean. The theorem is the VAK which as we said an extension of KAM to quantum mechanics. The experimental verification is a fact. Scientists engage in an honest historical analysis of science will show at some time who was first and who was not. Now let me go back to the fundamental question of why the golden mean? A Slovenian scientist and mathematician following Mohamed El Naschie expand the idea of mechanical oscillators. Many papers have been published on this subject by L. Marek-Crnjac. Take a two degree of freedom oscillator. Two masses connected by two linear springs. Write the equation of motion. Set the value for the masses as well as the spring constants equal unity. The secular equation is then simply a quadratic equation. The Eigen values are golden mean related. The only positive real Eigen value is the golden mean. Imagine now that you have infinitely many such oscillators connected together. Consequently you can estimate the Eigen value using two well known theorems on Eigen values. These are the Southwell theorem and the Dunkerly theorem. They correspond to what we have studied in school about joining electrical resistance of Ome’s law. When they are successive you add the inverses and when they are parallel you add them. Eigen values are frequencies. Frequencies are energy and energy is mass. Extrapolating the whole thing to quantum mechanics as argued by El Naschie and Marek-Crnjac you have another plausibility explanation for why the golden mean will pop up in any accurate measurement in quantum mechanics phenomenon. You can see all this theorem in any good book on Mechanical Vibration. There are of course many other ways to argue the appearance of the golden mean which I will discuss next as soon as you have made your comment. Best regards, E-Infinity communication Ray Munroe replied on Mar. 11, 2010 @ 16:44 GMT Dear E-Infinity, OK - I get your point that we can create an equation of the form, x^2 = x + 1 if we set all of our masses, couplings, and fundamental constants equal to one (and of course, we do similar simplifications in many fields of Physics). Technically, the harmonic oscillator problem has time derivatives, not a power series, but it is part of the foundation of Quantum Field Theory. Whereas we could probably never 'create' a simple classical or quantum equation that would yield exactly Fibonacci's sequence. Doesn't this also imply that all of reality has a 'fractal' nature? If this is the case, then what 'number' do we take as our true integer? El Naschie uses 10 dimensions as if it is exactly 10 dimensions. From this point of reference, we see that our other important 'fractal dimensionalities' are ~0.9, 1.5, 2.4, 3.8, 6.2, *EXACTLY 10*, 16.2, 26.2, 42.4, 68.5, etc. Perhaps one could partially justify the choice of 10 dimensions based on 10-D String Theory, or on the 10-D Lambda_10 laminated lattice, or on the observation that other details (such as alpha-bar) seem to work out properly. But how then does 11-D M-Theory fit? How do any other higher dimensionality theories fit? Now Spacetime is not 4-D. It is fractal-D. Could we still describe a fractal-D Spacetime with 3-D Icosahedra or 4-D H4 120/600-cells, or does all of our analysis (and numbering system) get messed up? We could hypothesize that the fractal-D is how Hyperspace interacts with Spacetime, but is that just stretching the idea? Or is that stretching our necks out on the chopping block? We need to be careful and formal about our assumptions. I would still love to see someone/anyone derive the idea "Infinity exists because the Golden Ratio exists". Have Fun! Ray Ray Munroe replied on Mar. 11, 2010 @ 19:27 GMT p.s. - Of course, Ohm's Law for resistors in parallel says that 1/R_eff = 1/R_1 + 1/R_2 +..., and this has the same form as reduced mass m_eff = (m_1*m_2)/(m_1+m_2). If all masses are equal to one, then m_eff = 1/2, and this is not an interesting example involving the Golden Ratio. However, if m_1 = 1 and m_2 =1.618, then m_eff = 0.618, and the Golden Ratio is involved. I think you need to clarify your example. If all masses are unity, then it doesn't make sense. Have Fun! Ray E-Infinity wrote on Mar. 11, 2010 @ 17:43 GMT E-Infinity Communication No 4 Mathematical reason for the golden mean in quantum physics Dear Ray You are right. But like all of us you are right to a point. We and science exist because philosophy exists. We lose track of things for the same reason. Do not fall in love in general in eloquent formulations no matter how beautiful a sentence is. Reality is indeed fractal. But then you can lose track of reality when you gloss over. You do that when your observation is inaccurate. Your observation ergo reality is as good as the resolution of your instrument. The whole idea of random cantor set as a building block of spacetime is that it is the reality which we were not able to observe directly until now. But it is there. For the first time it manifested itself in quantum mechanics indirectly through the golden mean. Let me first give you some more demanding reasons why the golden mean is there. We will have to make a jump. It is not systematic. It does not follow from what I said in previous communications. Please accept it for now on its face value. The most fundamental thing which we have for the whole shebang is Kline modular curve in the compactified version. I am not sure of this great man if this great man Roger Penrose knew that he rediscovered the same thing from a far more fundamental viewpoint as far as quantum mechanics is concerned. The entire world of quantum mechanics is encoded in Penrose universe. I know that theoretical physicists can be quite impatient with Penrose and secretly they curse him. I know that his twistor program has come to a halt. And he sometimes said something to the effect that it has failed. But that does not apply to his fractal tiling. Not at all. There is another mathematician who is interested in physics and who is truly an exceptional man. Not as general as Penrose but he runs in the same direction. The work of Alain Connes on non-commutative geometry is best illustrated by Penrose Universe. The work of both men derives its essence from Von Neumann Continuous Geometry. For the sake of this communication, I will refer to page, verse and chapter of Alain Connes Noncommutative Geometry published by Academic Press, copyright 1994. Please look at page 89. Examine figure II.3 entitled Penrose Tilings. Move to page 90. When you read the second paragraph your mind will lit. He says x is a quantum space and then he says that the entire thing is described as tiling. Then he gives an unheard of elementary equation which he calls dimensional function. The dimensional function is z plus the inverse golden mean multiplied by z. It was El Naschie who noticed the profound meaning of this equation and realized that applying some elementary matrix analysis to it, he obtained his bijection formula. You recall that the bijection formula relates the Hausdorff dimension for an n topological space to the backbone or Hausdorff dimension of a zero dimensional space. It is difficult to explain these things without mathematics on this blog. Let me give you a small example: a random cantor set has a golden mean as a Hausdorff dimension. The Menger Uhryson dimension which is nothing but an extended topological dimension for this set is zero. To find the dimension for n = 4, we take the inverse golden mean to the power of 4 – 1 equal three. This means the Hausdorff dimension is 4.23606799 or 4 plus the golden mean to the power of three. You met this famous formula before. But this time we are driving it from the work of Alain Connes. The same thing can be done using von Neumann’s Continuous Geometry which is the basis of Alain Connes work. However nothing can rival the simplicity of Penrose Fractal Tiling. This fractal tiling is the holographic boundary of the theory of everything. And now comes the unexpected expected result. It is impossible to have a Penrose Universe without golden mean proportionality. Penrose kit and dart inside kit and dart inside kit and dart and so on indefinitely could not be designed without the golden mean. In terms of the mathematics of Hamiltonian system, we say we could not have smooth tiling without gaps or overlapping unless we have golden mean proportionalities. Please read the elementary but fascinatingly beautiful Penrose Tilings. Penrose did not stop at that. He has driven a fantastic formula called the isomorphic length. The isomorphic lens was popularized by Martin Gardner. Believe it or not, when you multiply this length by 2 what do you get? You get exactly 4.23606799. In other words you get half of the Hausdorff dimension of the expectation value of El Naschie E-Infinity space. Remember this Hausdorff dimension is found in the most elementary fashion by putting a 4 dimensional cube inside another dimensional cube and so on indefinitely. To get the value you write a continued fraction. That is 4 plus one over four plus one over four and so on indefinitely in the familiar fashion and the final result after infinitely many iteration is 4 plus the golden mean to the power of 3. I will repeat again, this is double as much as we have with a Penrose isomorphic length. The isomorphic length is a wonder which is not a wonder. You stand anywhere in a Penrose universe holographic boundary. You look around yourself and see the world. You close your eyes and move a distance. At a distance not larger than the isomorphic length, you open your eyes again and you will think you have not moved at all. You have a recurrence of the whole universe around you giving you the illusion you have not moved. That is where infinity and finiteness become exchangeable. That is what Mohamed El Naschie observed and used. All very simple. This is the wonder of the hyperbolic geometry in compactified form. You have used related ideas in driving your E12 Exceptional Lie group. I have looked at your paper in Chaos, Solitons & Fractals. I have seen some of your figures. This is all thanks to the work of von Neumann’s noncommutative algebra and Alain Connes noncommutative geometry and Penrose incredible geometrical intuition and knowledge. Mohamed El Naschie, the engineer gave all these subjects the time they needed to digest and reproduce them in his own language in what we call today E-Infinity. I know this communication is far more complex than the previous one. There may be many gaps in my explanation. But I will come back to everything once again and my next communication will be far more comprehensive and far more elementary. But I would like to draw your attention to the last informal review which Mohamed El Naschie wrote on the subject. It is called: The theory of Cantorian spacetime and high energy physics (an informal review), published in Chaos, Solitons & Fractals 41(2009) 2635-2646. As for the golden mean and the symplictic character of quantum vacuum, I advise you to read a short and very simple and beautiful paper by Mohamed El Naschie relating the whole thing to the Banach-Tarski paradox and the no squeezing theorem. The paper is titled: New elementary particles as a possible product of a disintegrating symplictic vacuum published in Chaos, Solitons & Fractals 20(2004) 905-913. I hope I was of some help and I advise to experiment yourself by doing some elementary calculations yourself. E-Infinity is hands on mathematics. We bring everything we know to bear on the problem. We start from absolutely abstract mathematics and go down without any problem to numerics as well as plausibility explanation. We need all the help we can get. Anything goes as long as it is logical and helpful to our understanding. E-Infinity communication Ray Munroe replied on Mar. 11, 2010 @ 20:32 GMT Dear E-Infinity, My apologies, but I am suffering from 'Information Overload' and will only answer part of this post at this time. Hopefully, I will be able to answer more thoroughly tomorrow. I like Klein's Chi(7) and Hyperbolic Heptagonal Tiling. You have seen it in my second CS&F publication. Its 336 triangles have the symmetries of G2 and SU(5), which are both relevant to GUT/TOE. Nature doesn't necessarily choose a mathematical structure because we think it is 'beautiful', but I like to consider these 'beautiful' ideas first. As I understand twistors, the idea is to build a 4-D Dirac gamma matrix out of pairs of 2-D Pauli matrices. Extending this to Klein's tiling, if we double the 336 triangles of Klein's Chi(7) (analogous to using pairs of Pauli matrices as a twistor?), then we have the 672 roots of E12. Although my Doctorate is in HEP-PH (1996 from Florida State U), I also studied Solid State Physics and Plasma Physics in graduate school (at the U of Texas, Austin - back in the 1980's when Prigogine, Weinberg and Wheeler were there), and I like the idea of multi-dimensional lattice structures representing fundamental particles. Lisi's E8 was a good example of a lattice that might possibly represent fundamental particles, but I don't understand the lattice structure and symmetries of E-Infinity. I need to think on your postings more. Have Fun! Ray Bosco wrote on Mar. 11, 2010 @ 18:15 GMT Dear All: I still think the best and simplest review article of E-Infinity is that entitled Review of E-Infinity published in Chaos, Solitons & Fractals 19(2004) 209-236. The paper has the highest citation in CERN. It has an index of 30,000 whatever this means. But I think it is an easy to read and unsophisticated from a mathematical point of view which appealed to me as a theoretical physicist. Jason replied on Mar. 11, 2010 @ 19:43 GMT You've named yourself after a delicious chocolate syrup. Mark wrote on Mar. 11, 2010 @ 23:02 GMT To Ray Munroe, This is an informal answer and we will continue a more formal discussion later when E-infinity group approve my next comment. Any lattice is far too restricted. Any lattice except a random lattice. E-infinity is powerful because it uses average symmetry approximated by a random lattice. It is simpler though than it sounds. Provided you have the right balance between left and right you can use E8 or the sum of all the exceptional Lie group or the sum of the 17 Lie groups leading to your E12. All these represent a super imposition of many things giving a form of higher order which lesser creatures call disorder. Mohamed El Naschie was always found of saying that randomness is the highest form of order. Don’t take everything literally. He was just referring to his paper in Nuevo Cimento entitled Average Symmetry….. In the next communication the group will send you something about wild topology. The topology that John Baez did not know much about. You may have noticed that John Baez does not make jokes any more with respect to El Naschie. The joke was on him. John Baez did not know that there are 8 compact exceptional Lie groups and neither did he know about the 17 Stein spaces although it is elementary stuff for a mathematician. Any way I do not want to have a go at him nor anybody else. This is just a waste of time. However I would like to hold you to your word by cleaning this site from imposters and intruders who have nothing in mind but gossip and vandalism. Is there any way for you to explain to these “gentlemen” that we are not interested in Jihan Fadel, nor Said, nor Mohamed nor the corrupt companies in Egypt nor anything outside of science. Do you have any leverage to forbid Jason and the like of him to enter into this site? To give you an idea Jason is totally banned from our New Scientist blogs. As soon as any obscene remarks from him appear, they delete it immediately. He is a lay about and of course has all the time in the world to throw his nonsense around and contaminate any respectable site but there must be a way to keep such creatures out Ray. Your help would be appreciated and it will encourage the E-infinity group to enter with you and similarly inclined scientists into a scientific dialogue. Thanks anyway and in all events. Jason replied on Mar. 11, 2010 @ 23:29 GMT Mark, I don't know why you're singling me out for criticism by name, and not M. Tolba, regarding the discussion of Jihan Fadel (who TOLBA brought up), Said (who TOLBA brought up), and corrupt Egyptian companies (which TOLBA brought up). I have been banned from more than one Web site in my life, but never a New Scientist one as far as I know. I am not aware of New Scientist having blogs. If it does I haven't visited them. If you're not interested in Jihan Fadel, you're gay. Not that there's anything wrong with that. Ray Munroe replied on Mar. 12, 2010 @ 01:39 GMT Dear Mark, I think that Jason has been behaving himself. I actually did not expect him to speak up on behalf of Jihan Fadel. Is she a participant in this war of personalities as M. Tolba implies, or is she an innocent bystander as Jason implies? I don't know... I would still prefer to focus on the ideas, such as E-Infinity, rather than focusing on the personalities, such as El Naschie, his friends, his family, his followers, those who condemn him, the publishers, etc... I really don't care to hear a bunch of "he said..., she said..." trash talk. We can alert the blogmaster. My guess is that all of these conversations will get moved to the official FQXi El Naschie site (topic #395). If that is your intent, then go for it. I don't mind staying on this more popular blog link as long as everyone behaves well enough. I think E-Infinity said it well with "Encouraged by the balanced and civilized remark of Dr. Munroe we will attempt to update you on anything new in E-infinity which comes to our attention and answer any reasonable well posed question which anyone of you has as far as we can. We hope that arguments and tone will remain within what you would do in a scientific conference or a discussion in a learned journal. By all means you can make the odd witty remark or polite joke. Just consider that you are not anonymous and that you are responsible for what you are saying. Science is a worthwhile and respectable endeavor. Even non religious people do not commit scandalous actions in a house of worship whether it is a church, synagogue, mosque or a budhist temple. Science is a kind of temple for us scientists and even if you do not believe in that, please out of respect to other believers, leave this site for science and let us discuss science without resorting to personal hidden agendas, irrational hate or jealousy and inferiority complexes. If you would love to see a trial you will have a long one in the High Court of London. Here we talk only about science. Thank you for understanding and now I can move to the next item." I think Jason has been behaving himself. Is the 'Jason wrote on Mar. 11, 2010 @ 21:29 GMT' comment inflamatory or a trick question? I see nothing obviously wrong with this post unless you despise the fact that he is also allowed to post on this site. Have Fun! Ray Jason replied on Mar. 12, 2010 @ 02:39 GMT Thank you, Ray. I do hope E-infinity or anyone who knows will respond to my question in Mar. 11, 2010 @ 21:29 GMT. Nobody is well served by allowing impostors to go unexposed. Ray Munroe replied on Mar. 12, 2010 @ 13:45 GMT Dear Mark, You said "Any lattice is far too restricted. Any lattice except a random lattice. E-infinity is powerful because it uses average symmetry approximated by a random lattice." I would still prefer to think of E-Infinity as a discrete lattice in a fractal number of dimensions, than to think of it as a non-lattice. If we are discussing sphere-packing, then we know that there is a difference between lattice packing vs. non-lattice packing. For instance, in 10-D our lattice packing kissing number is Lambda_10=336, whereas our non-lattice kissing number is at least 500 (according to an older list by Nebe and Sloane at http://www2.research.att.com/~njas/lattices/kiss.html ). My example is E8 has 240 roots which decompose as 240=8x30=8x(2x3x5). If E-Infinity has a fractal dimension, of say 11.42-D, then we would have 685.2 roots which might decompose as 685.2=11.42x60=11.42x(2x2x3x5). If lattice structure exists, then it gives us details about underlying symmetries. HEP theorists are more interested in underlying symmetries than in packing all fundamental particles into one structure. Have Fun! Ray Einfinity fabrication wrote on Mar. 12, 2010 @ 06:31 GMT Few examples for an author called M. Agop who is trumpeting the virtue E-Infinity theory, he has almost thirty nine articles containing in their titles El naschie. 1- El Naschie s E-infinity theory and effects of nanoparticle clustering on the heat transport in nanofluids Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, Volume 37, Issue 5, September 2008, Pages 1269-1278 M.... view entire post Few examples for an author called M. Agop who is trumpeting the virtue E-Infinity theory, he has almost thirty nine articles containing in their titles El naschie. 1- El Naschie s E-infinity theory and effects of nanoparticle clustering on the heat transport in nanofluids Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, Volume 37, Issue 5, September 2008, Pages 1269-1278 M. Agop, V. Paun, Anca Harabagiu Abstract: Effects of nanoparticle clustering on the heat transfer in nanofluids using the scale relativity theory in the topological dimension DT = 3 are analyzed. In the one-dimensional differentiable case, the clustering morphogenesis process is achieved by cnoidal oscillation modes of the speed field. In such conjecture, a non-autonomous regime implies a relation between the radius and growth speed of the cluster while, a quasi-autonomous regime requires El Naschie s E-infinity theory through the cluster cluster coherence (El Naschie global coherence). Moreover, these two regimes are separated by the golden mean. In the one-dimensional non-differentiable case, the fractal kink spontaneously breaks the vacuum symmetry of the fluid by tunneling and generates coherent structures. This mechanism is similar to the one of superconductivity. Thus, the fractal potential acts as an energy accumulator while, the fractal soliton, implies El Naschie s E-infinity theory (El Naschie local coherence). Since all the properties of the speed field are transferred to the thermal one, for a certain conditions of an external load (e.g. for a certain value of thermal gradient) the soliton and fractal one breaks down (blows up) and release energy. As result, the thermal conductibility in nanofluids unexpectedly increases. Here, El Naschie s E-infinity theory interferes through El Naschie global and local coherences. 2- El Naschie s structures in the electrodynamics of polarizable media Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, Volume 24, Issue 5, June 2005, Pages 1165-1181 M. Agop, I. Merches, V. Enache Abstract: Using the concept of combined field , an electrodynamics of polarizable media on a fractal space time is constructed. In this context, using the scale relativity theory, the permanent electric moment, the induced electric moment, the vacuum fluctuations, the paraelectrics, the diaelectrics, the electric Zeeman-type effect, the electric Einstein de Haas-type effect, the electric Aharonov Bohm-type effect, the superconductors in the combined field , the double layers as coherent structures, the magnetic Aharonov Casher-type effect, are analyzed. Correspondence with the E-infinity space time is accomplished either by admitting an anomal electric Zeeman-type effect, or through a fractal string as in the case of a superconductor in combined field , or, by phase coherence of the electron ion pairs from the electric double layers (El Naschie s coherence). Moreover, the electric double layer or multiple layer may be considered as two-dimensional projections of the same El Naschie s fractal strings (higher-dimensional strings in E-infinty space time). Please the reader should be careful about the new concept of El Naschie global and local coherences and the ability of E-infinity for explaining every thing you can imagine. I advice every readers to give a look at this author Agop http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleListURL& _method=list&_ArticleListID=854751840& view=c&_acct=C00005022 1&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=57e20c10dbdce6aebb bc81f36416a702 His articles are really endless kind of joy and great virtue of entertaining as the articles of El naschie himself. Elseiver could distribute these articles as jokes and I bet that they would be more profitable than distributing them as scientific papers. Jason replied on Mar. 12, 2010 @ 10:59 GMT Agop wrote some funny stuff. :) That link doesn't work because it requires a cookie that's not present. Readers can go to http://www.sciencedirect.com/ and type "Agop" in the author field. Einfinity fabrication wrote on Mar. 12, 2010 @ 06:33 GMT For the sake of entertaining, we present another article for this miraculous author M. Agop trumpeting the virtue of the great El-naschie's E-infinity theory. Ball lightning as a self-organizing process of a plasma plasma interface and El Naschie s E-infinity space time Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, Volume 33, Issue 3, August 2007, Pages 754-769 M. Agop, C. Murgulet Abstract: In the fractal space time theories, some properties of a ball lightning (BL) are established: the oscillation regimes, the hysteresis, the distributions of the potential, field and charge etc. In such a context, the Feynman El Naschie hypothesis on the universality of the dipole dipole interaction is confirmed and a connection between El Naschie s E-infinity space time and Feigenbaum Goldfain conjecture is given. In this enlightening article, one finds the name of the great man El naschie associated with Feynman, which remembers us for the association of Bose and Einstein. Can the great man tell us what is Feynman-El naschie hypothesis.!!!!, and if you use fractal space time or not or he does not use fractals at all. By the way, Feynman had only 35 published papers, do you consider him as an average physicist. Feynman's prolificity can not match yours. http://www.slac.stanford.edu/spires/find/hep/www?rawcm d=FIND+A+FEYNMAN&FORMAT= wwwcitesummary&SEQUENCE= Finally your miraculous and ridiculous articles and even those based on them are not even wrong, they are non sense. No respectable journal will ever accept a paper discussing your theory this post was moved here from a different topic About Notale ...etal wrote on Mar. 12, 2010 @ 06:35 GMT In fact there is a french article, dated back 2007, about Nottale who is one of the associate editor of CSF, and as a by product the article catched the case of El naschie. www.archipel.uqam.ca/481/01/gingras_bontems_SSI.pdf and cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=20046891 The article is a biblometeric study, and you can see how the scintific corruption can take place. There many people involved in that matter, the study mentioned El naschie, sidharth, Agop, Castro and Ord. Nottale is not a prominent french scintist at all. I hope that the great man El naschie will sue those people who wrote this article after carefully reading it . I think the great is a multi-lingual one Jason replied on Mar. 12, 2010 @ 10:15 GMT Awesome find. I just blogged this. Steve Dufourny replied on Mar. 12, 2010 @ 10:33 GMT Hi , I have read in French and it is a sad reality of the global sciences community where the business takes the main part of the reality. It is a phenomen of decreasing of the evolution and thus we can understand the state of our planet. How many years still like that......BAD GOVERNANCE + CORRUPTION+CRIMINALITY = CHAOS........UNIVERSALITY+ EDUCATION+HARMONIOUS ADAPTED SCIENCES = HARMONY It exists bad and good people everywhere in all cultures, religions, countries....they are a minority and the majority waits ....thus TAKE YOUR RESPONSABILITY AND NOW in fact ...... Regards Steve Ray Munroe replied on Mar. 12, 2010 @ 13:16 GMT Dear Steve, I agree. We are well-educated people who understand concepts that most people can't even imagine, and yet we carry on like young children without any adult supervision. "He hit me first...(whine)..." It might sound silly, but I like the Spiderman quote "With great power comes great responsibility." We all have great mental power. Some of us have great financial power. We should set a good example for the rest of the world, rather than being a bad example. Can we talk about the ideas and avoid the war of personalities? Thank You! Your Friend, Ray E-infinity wrote on Mar. 12, 2010 @ 13:03 GMT E-infinity communication No. 5 Deriving the basic equations of E-infinity Part I – Elementary introduction Ignoring nonsense and concentrating on science I would like to explain how to derive the basic dimensional equations of E-infinity. I will start for simplicity with what is more familiar to people not acquainted with E-infinity as a starting point. Later on we will give the accurate, exact derivation and finally we will look into the correspondence to noncommutative geometry and other mathematical theory. Dimension is the most important topological invariant we have. It is more fundamental than the Euler number or what have you. We start with topology to construct what Wheeler rather loosely calls pre-geometry. We imagine an infinite number of Cantor sets to be joined together statistically to form a pre-geometry and we use for this purpose a Gausian-like distribution which is called gamma distribution. There is some contradiction here because we are joining discrete sets but we use continuous distribution. Later on we will introduce the correct discrete gamma distribution. OK. What we are distributing now is not the sets but the Hausdorff dimension of the sets. We distribute them like Wheeler’s bucket of dust. You can check that in the literature. What is the expectation value of a Hausdorff dimension for the whole collection of this dust? Wheeler calls it Borel mix. I do not think Wheeler had exactly a Borel set in mind, but never mind. To find this average or expectation dimension you have to know the multiplier lambda and a shape factor r. The expectation value is given by r divided by the natural logarithm of lambda. A little contemplation will show that lambda must be the inverse golden mean because we are taking only random elementary Cantor sets in our Borel mix. Taking the simplest camel hump shape we see that r must be equal to two. You can find that in any text book on statistics and probability theory for instance the book of Pitman. Divide now two by ln the inverse golden mean. This gives you 4.156174. Please do this yourself using a pocket calculator. You will remember the exact value should have been 4.236067977. Well this is the price in accuracy which you have to pay for using the continuous gamma distribution. If you want to have the exact result then you have to get rid of the spurious nonlinear terms in the expansion of the natural logarithm. Mohamed El Naschie pointed out that the linear terms of the expansion correspond to the exact discrete distribution. If you do that and make no mistakes then the two divided by the logarithm of lambda changes to 1 plus the golden mean all divided by 1 minus the golden mean. When you do this you will find the exact solution which is 4.236067977. Let me show how we get that from first principles exactly. You assume you have a random Cantor set with a golden mean Hausdorff dimension. You add to that all the Cantor sets in the world, that is to say infinitely many, each having a Hausdorff dimension equal to the golden mean to the power of n, where n goes from zero to infinity. This would give you a sum which when summed correctly then it is equal to 1 divided by 1 minus phi, namely the golden mean. To compare that with the initial Cantor set which you started with, you have to divide the whole sum again by phi. The result is the well known expectation value of the Hausdorff dimension of E-infinity. Suppose we do not know that phi is the golden mean. Leave it be just a formula for the expectation value of the Hausdorff dimension. This formula now reads 1 ÷(1-?) ?. Remember we had another formula from the gamma distribution which says (1 + ?) ÷(1-?). Now comes the most important condition we have. The first dimension is the Hausdorff dimension, namely an expectation value. The second dimension is an expectation value of a topological dimension. To have a space worth the name space you should have no gaps and no overlapping. The requirement for that is that both preceding dimensions should be equal. Equating both formulas you find a quadratic equation for ?. Solving this equation you find that ? is indeed the golden mean, namely 0.618033989. This is space filling condition which Mohamed El Naschie introduced to derive this formula. Inserting the value for ? in any of the two formulas you always find that the dimension is equal to 4.236067977 as should be. You can find the detailed derivation in many papers of El Naschie as well as in the work of Marek-Crnjac and others. We see that E-infinity pre-geometry is described by more than one dimension. We have a topological dimension on the average which is equal to the Hausdorff dimension on the average equal to 4 + the golden mean to the power of 3. In addition you have exactly four dimensional topologically speaking. However formally you have been adding infinitely many Cantor sets so that you really have infinitely many dimensions. To understand that the topological dimension is exactly four, I have to refer you to the bijection formula which is connecting El Naschie’s work with noncommutative geometry. In this particular case the formula says that the correction dimension is obtained from raising the inverse golden mean to the power of n minus one. To get the correct result, namely 4.236067977 you have to have n equals 4. When n is equal n then n minus one is equal 3 and hey presto, you see that the inverse golden mean to the power of 3 gives indeed the correct expected dimension, namely our familiar 4.236067977. I urge every reader to do it himself using the pocket calculator. Working yourself through all these little calculations you will start having a feel for the golden mean symphony which is governing quantum mechanics and high energy physics. In the next communication we will go deeper into all the subjects once more from a higher view point. This was just an elementary taste of what it is all about. Ray Munroe replied on Mar. 12, 2010 @ 16:58 GMT Dear E-Infinity, I am losing interest in this game. It is less fun since we have been banished to Topic #395. I am not the primary person that you need to convince. In my humble opinion, more-or-less the right things are being done for more-or-less the wrong reasons. IMO, the key questions are "If the Golden Ratio is relevant to Nature, then 1) How does that affect our perception of reality (i.e. what is the fractal dimensionality of space, what is the fractal dimensionality of time, what is the fractal dimensionality of hyperspace) and 2) How do we choose our normalization (i.e. do we normalize our golden sequence on 10 as El Naschie did, or is there a more relevant normalization)?" I think your answers to these questions are different than mine. As a phenomenologist and a theorist, I do not consider it wise to ignore important philosophical implications in your rush to build relevant models. Have Fun! Ray The fabriac of E-infinity wrote on Mar. 13, 2010 @ 06:43 GMT "No one can take us out of the E-infinite paradise created for us by El naschie, I see it but I can't believe it" Ping-Bong He El naschie is a real spark in the human written history, he is startling . Al his predictions based on E-infinity theory are well verified. Among many and just to name: 1-The well experimentally verified results about fiber wool pioneered by Huan. Who showed that the Hausdorff dimension of fiber wool is to be about 4.2325, very close to El Naschie’s E-infinity dimension, 4.2360. According to Huan this reveals an optimal structure for wool fibers. This is an easy proved fact and it doesn’t need high energy. Hierarchy of wool fibers and its interpretation using E-infinity theory Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, Volume 41, Issue 4, 30 August 2009, Pages 1839-1841 Ji-Huan He, Zhong-Fu Ren, Jie Fan, Lan Xu 2- A remarkable achievement of El naschie is his unique extra ordinary talent in revealing a deep connection between double slit experiment and particle physics. That is really a breakthrough in the field has never been acheived. 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 M.S. El Naschie 3- El naschie is gifted in doing simple calculations and getting non-perturbative results. While ordinary people can get results by using supper computer in a one year, El naschie get the same results straight forward by counting on his fingers without using computer at all. These are due his GOLDEN FINGERS. On quarks confinement and asymptotic freedom Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, Volume 37, Issue 5, September 2008, Pages 1289-1291 M.S. El Naschie Quarks confinement Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, Volume 37, Issue 1, July 2008, Pages 6-8 M.S. El Naschie 4- With a simple rope with knots El naschie could derive the spectrum of possible Elementary particles, and realy this is the discovery of the century. Any one can just bring a rope with knots and could easily testify El naschie’s conjecture. Fuzzy multi-instanton knots in the fabric of space–time and Dirac’s vacuum fluctuation Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, Volume 38, Issue 5, December 2008, Pages 1260-1268 El naschie may be the greatest thinker in the history of mankind and his theory is the most important discovery since the invention of wheel. El naschie maybe the most remarkable event after cosmic big bang. His theory can describe every thing after big bang and I’m sure El naschie will extend his theory to accommodate what has been before big bang. Please don’t wonder it is an E-infinity theory that could deal with such a long history of time. E-infinity 6 wrote on Mar. 13, 2010 @ 18:54 GMT E-infinity communication No. 6 Derivation of the fundamental equations of E-infinity Part II As Confuscious says, ignore perturbation and like Mohamed says, may peace be upon all of you. Let us continue with our scientific discussion. We would like to tie up some loose ends and unintentional omission of some important aspects of the main equation as discussed so far in communication No. 5. El Naschie draws attention to an important interpretation of the approximate formula of the expectation value of the gamma distribution of E-infinity. You recall that it was 2 divided by ln lambda. Taking lambda to be the inverse golden mean then ln lambda will have an important interpretation in terms of an entropy which mathematicians call topological entropy. The topological entropy for a certain map turns out ln 1.6180333 equal 0.481212. If you interpret the 2 as being the Hausdorff dimension of a quantum path following Abbot and Wise famous paper, then dividing 2 by this topological entropy is giving you the entropic content of a quantum path. In other words the approximate solution for the expectation value of the Hausdorff dimension, namely 4.156174 is effectively an entropic content. We see the important interplay between different notions which are not different at all when seen from a higher level. Those familiar with string theory and Brane theory may find an analogy for this in the fact that P-Brane and D-Brane which were thought to be different are in fact not different at all. The difference is in the eye of the beholder. In this context we should apply the same interpretation but this time using a different lambda of a different map. The value of this lambda is itself our 2. Consequently we have 2 divided by ln2. This is a different entropic content using again a topological entropy definition. The value in this case is 2.885390. Try to remember this for later use because this value approximates the missing part needed to compactify chi 7. I mean the part you need in order to make 336 come nearer to 339 by compactification. Of course I am running ahead of my story but please remember this bit for later on. Now let me give you the exact E-infinity derivation of our 4.23606799 dimensions which we can obtain without making any reference to anything except the pre-geometry we are constructing and the center of gravity theorem of probability theory. Let us take all integers from 0 to infinity. Let us regard this as infinite dimensions. Now we give each dimension a weight. This weight is equal to the golden mean to the power of n where n runs from 0 to infinity. What then is the center of gravity of the whole thing? This is a very simple problem in probability theory which mechanical engineers like to think of as searching for the resultant of many forces. It is now very easy to guess that the resultant which acts at the center of gravity will be given by the sum from 0 to infinity of n multiplied with the golden mean to the power of n and all multiplied with n again, where the last n is now the arm of the force while the force is n multiplied with the golden mean to the power of n. You have to divide this now by the sum of all forces which is sum from 0 to infinity of n multiplied with the golden mean to the power of n. In other words you have a sum of moments divided by the sum of forces. This gives you the expectation value of the average arm of the resultant. This arm is the expectation value of our dimension of the space made of these infinitely many weighted topological dimensions. These infinite series can be summed exactly as shown by El Naschie and it is an elementary matter to show that the final sum is simply 1 plus the golden mean all divided by minus the golden mean which all comes exactly to the well known and familiar value of 4 plus the golden mean to the power of 3. In sum pure mathematical communication Mohamed El Naschie was able to show that this is a well known result in the theory of the Coxeter groups. You can find this paper in Elsevier’s Science Direct. In a forthcoming communication we promise to show you that all these results are derivable from the theory of subfactors as well as Alan Connes’ noncommutative geometry. Now to close this 6th communication I would like to give you the exact derivation of the dimension of the holographic boundary of E8 E8 in the case of complete compactification. You recall that we started with 336. Then we keep adding triangles indefinitely in a hyperbolic way. To understand how to find a finite value for this compactification to infinity, you have to be familiar with the theory of Klein’s modular curve. You have to know that there is an important orbit with 42 points in the 336 curve. This 42 can be thought of as 4 and 0.2 lifted to 10 dimensions by taking 10 copies. That is to say it is 4.2 multiplied with 10. A little contemplation will make it evident that 4.2 is just an approximation to 4.23606799. Taking 10 copies of that you get 42.3606799. Now this is the exact coupling constant of unification in the absence of super symmetry. Thus in the ordinary case of non-compactified Klein’s modular curve, you get 336 from 42 multiplied with 8. In the exact transfinite case you get the correct result by multiplying 8 with 42.3606799. When you do that you get 338.885438. This is exactly 2.885438. You see now how close this is to what I told you earlier, namely 2 divided by ln2 equals 2.885390. Very close but not completely correct. The exact expression is well known from the theory of transfinite corrections as developed by Mohamed El Naschie following a similar theory dealing with operators due to Fritz John. The exact expression is 16k. Here k is equal to the golden mean to the power of 3 multiplied with 1 minus the golden mean to the power of 3. When you do that you find that it is 0.180340. Now you take 16 copies of it and you have your exact result 2.885438. Now let us derive the exact theoretical inverse electromagnetic constant using Mohamed El Naschie’s fundamental equation and the previous exact transfinite value. The number connected with Einstein’s gravity Reimannian tensor will remain 20. However the dimension of E8 is no longer exactly 248 but 247.983739. This is 248 minus k square divided by 2. Now our equation should read E8 E8 minus holographic boundary minus Einstein gravity equal inverse electromagnetic constant. Taking the appropriate dimension we have 495.967478 minus 338.885438 minus 20 equals 137.082039325. This is the exact theoretical value as promised. It is the integer value 137 plus a transfinite correction equal to k o where this new constant is equal to the golden mean power 5 multiplied with 1 minus the golden mean power 5 equals 0.082039325. You see the extent of our precision and how the constants of nature are obtained as a probability resulting from summing over infinitely many states but I think it is enough for now and promise to come back in our next communication in due course. this post was moved here from a different topic post approved Sylvia wrote on Mar. 14, 2010 @ 21:15 GMT Hi Brendan, I refer to the comment of ‘Jason’ whose blog we all know and hate. Whilst we have no problem with ‘El Naschie’ stuff being moved to 395 – that means all Jason’s comments as that he seems to be capable of writing about nothing else, we object to science comments being moved there. As scientists we are more than capable of making up our own minds about a theory. Science is supposed to be discussing just that – theories – and therefore comments on E-infinity should be left here. We do not want to read the other trash but we do want to have the opportunity to use our own minds and discuss science in an appropriate way. I hope you will continue to give us that opportunity and continue to rid this site of trash. this post was moved here from a different topic post approved Jason replied on Mar. 15, 2010 @ 00:26 GMT Don't be a hater, Sylvia. Ahmed wrote on Mar. 14, 2010 @ 21:23 GMT Dear friends, When some of you get entangled with personalities commonly referred to as trash, you should not be astonished when we become aloof. We do not want to be entangled with these people. If you do not mind and are so liberal as to endure the unendurable, it is your choice. However do not get offended or be astonished when we avoid you and do not answer your mail. No offense is meant. We can take that much and we live in a conservative society where such freaks will damage our image among our colleagues. Apart of that and quite honestly, serious scientific discussion on blogs is almost impossible. I know of no respectable scientist who uses blogs to communicate with his friends and colleagues. The overwhelming majority of those who use blogs for scientific discussion are losers and crackpots. I am sorry for these harsh views but they are my views. With respect and wishing you the best this post was moved here from a different topic Ray Munroe replied on Mar. 14, 2010 @ 23:55 GMT Dear Ahmed, I play on these blog site and do serious work via e-mail. If you are my friend, Nasr Ahmed, then you know how to reach me directly (as does my friend, Ayman Elokaby). I appreciated the lessons in E-Infinity, but I have finally located the crux of my problem with this theory. I have enough respect for the people involved that I prefer not to play this out on a blog site. Have Fun! Ray James Putnam replied on Mar. 15, 2010 @ 00:17 GMT Dear Ray, That is good news. I moved out of your way on purpose. I wish you success. I have little understanding about what you are doing. I am moving in a very different direction; but, I look forward to someday seeing published results with your name included. Your friend. James Jason replied on Mar. 15, 2010 @ 01:49 GMT Hi Ray, I didn't know Ayman Elokaby is your friend. Can you please tell him I emailed him a week ago but got no response? Thanks. Ray Munroe replied on Mar. 15, 2010 @ 12:26 GMT Dear Jason, I have not conversed with Ayman in some time, but he and Nasr are close, and I suspect he knows you want to contact him. Although I think there may be errors in E-Infinity, I am not ready to scrap it - I think it is salvagable and relevant. I also have respect for El Naschie's ideas. I suspect that Nasr and Ayman are similarly conflicted - perhaps more so because they were closer to El Naschie at one time. Dear James, Thank you for the support. I have been frustrated with my recent lack of ideas, but all of this E-Infinity stuff has reinspired me. Have Fun! Ray The fabraic of E-infinity wrote on Mar. 15, 2010 @ 06:32 GMT kalimera E-infinity Today we will tell you about the story of the great man El naschie. As it is obvious El naschie doesn't know physics nor mathematics, but the man has a great dream to be a nobel laureate, then he decided to establish his own journal to shock the establishment by his garbage ideas. He invented his E-infinity theory for the sole sake of destroyica (I mean destroying physics and mathematics). The great man is a simple minded, he just rely on counting on his fingers, by this simple strategy he can attack any physical or mathematical problems ranging from big bang, string theory .... down to Fermat last theorem. The great man invented his unique style in writing paper with no numbering equation. There a simple reason behind that his paper enjoys self similarity, any small portion of the paper is similar to the rest of it. His marvelous referencing, he usually refer his own garbage work and text books. He usually confuses between him self and Witten. It is enough for today Antío E-infinity E-infinity 7 wrote on Mar. 15, 2010 @ 15:42 GMT E-infinity communication No. 7 Derivation of the fundamental equations of E-infinity Part III For the benefit of those who appreciate scientific discussion as opposed to defamatory allegations and those who would like to learn something about E-infinity as opposed to hearsay and parrot repetitions of misconceptions, we continue our discussion by giving literature which we omitted to mention in detail in Communication No. 6. Pre-geometry and the main idea of Borel mix as used by Wheeler can be found on page 1205 of his monumental book Gravitation, by Charles W. Misner, Kip S. Thorne and John Archibald Wheeler, published by Freeman, New York 1973. You can find everything about gamma distribution in the book Probability by Jim Pitman, published by Springer, Berlin 1993. The expectation value of the gamma and other distributions are conveniently summarized in the table on page 476-477. Now let me reminisce about Mohamed El Naschie and his lectures when I was just about to finish my Ph.D. He said something very remarkable about the Cantor sets. He said it is something which is there and yet not there. In his youth Mohamed was a friend and follower of Jean Paul Sartre. He was greatly influenced by Sartre’s major book Being and Nothingness (original title L’Etre et le neant: Essai d’ontologie phenomenologique). Mohamed read the book in the German translation, having German as quasi his mother tongue (Das Sein und das Nichts). He was even acquainted with it at the tender age of 12 in the Arabic translation by Abdul Rahman Badawi, the famous Egyptian philosopher at that time. In fact Mohamed’s father who was an army general was quite concerned and worried that his young son is reading these things of which he could not make out head or tail. Education is never in vain, even if it is philosophy. The Cantor set made quite an impression on Mohamed and he instantly connected it with what he had read in Sartre’s book. He even mentioned the work of Sartre as well as Martin Heidegger in one of his most profound very early papers on the subject. This particular paper was cited by many pure mathematicians thinking that Mohamed is a pure mathematician. In his review of E-infinity theory Mohamed likened the Hausdorff dimension of the Cantor set with the spirit of a body which has long decayed. He likened it with this famous ghost story by Oscar Wilde. This particular review which is highly cited and although it is only five years old and despite all the negative propaganda artificially created in certain quarters, A Review of E-infinity Theory is found on Google Scholar to have been cited 328 times. I recall something similar which was said by Leibnitz about imaginary numbers. Leibnitz said there are amphibian between being and not being. This is a remarkable formulation which covers almost exactly Mohamed’s notion of a Cantor set. It is an amphibian between being and nothingness to use the terminology which he borrowed from Jean Paul Sartre. There is no shame in borrowing things from famous as well as lesser mortals. What is shameful is to attempt to hijack other people’s ideas and deliberately calling them your own. Now I would like to go back to the derivation of the fundamental equations. I must warn from the outset however from a major mistake which some could easily commit because they judge in haste. There is no element in Mohamed El Naschie’s work which is numerology. We agree fully with what Dr. Ray Munroe said on certain blogs that numerology is a pattern of numbers for which we have not yet discovered the real underlying reality, physics or theory. However nothing is further from the truth when it comes to E-infinity theory. If you still suffer from this delusion then you have not yet understood the theory. That would be a real pity because the theory is not difficult at all when you free yourself from all prejudice. Now we give yet another derivation of the expectation value of the Hausdorff dimension. You have to start with the well known dimension of noncommutative geometry. The dimension is given as index or dim of N and M. It is written however as [M:N]. This is given by 1 divided by L plus 1 divided by 1 minus L. Here L is trace of E. From the theory of subfactors we have a very similar formula but this time giving [M:N] by 1 divided 2d-1. Now set L equal d and you will find a quadratic equation for d or L showing that it is equal to the golden mean or minus the inverse golden mean. For the positive value we get our 4 plus the golden mean to the power of 3. I leave it to you to have fun with Alain Connes and the great mathematician of the theory of subfactors. I leave it to you now to work out for yourself the four dimensional fusion algebra which has 1, 1, golden mean and golden mean again as a solution. It sounds like a puzzle but the next communication will make it clearer. Let me end in the same way that some of the rather pleasant commenters on the Munroe blog end their comments by saying, have fun and I add, try to ignore perturbation. this post was moved here from a different topic Dr. Cosmic Ray replied on Mar. 15, 2010 @ 15:59 GMT Dear E-Infinity, You said "the theory is not difficult at all when you free yourself from all prejudice". I understand why El Naschie can count so well on his 'golden fingers'. If everything is based on powers of the Golden Ratio (which can be easily approximated with Fibonnaci's sequence) and on powers of 10 (powers of 10 make the metric system easy to use, and E-Infinity is (10*1.618*1.618)^2), then you should be able to perform some powerful computations with simple counting tricks. But have you prejudiced your 'theory' to conform to your base 10 counting system? Please stop calling me out by name. Have Fun! Jason replied on Mar. 15, 2010 @ 17:42 GMT Hi E-infinity, You said "Now let me reminisce about Mohamed El Naschie and his lectures when I was just about to finish my Ph.D." Wow... really? Are you his student? Where did he give the lectures? Please, I want to hear all about that. E-infinity connoisseur wrote on Mar. 15, 2010 @ 19:19 GMT Dr. Cosmic Ray, The E-infinity group, if they are really the ones behind these communications, and I tend to think they are have not explained yet their mathematics. Please note they have given you the derivation of the fundamental equation basically a cube inside a cube inside a cube to infinity. The most important thing to come is calculus. Where is the achievement of Newton and Leibnitz? The answer is astounding. Scaling up and scaling down are the substitutes for differentiation and integration. You have to take my words with a grain of salt. The devil is in the detail. What El Naschie achieved on this level is both profound and again enormously elementary. The marvelous idea of Herman Weyl failed. This is history. However why exactly did he fail? We know Einstein explained to him why electromagnetism is different from gravity. If you remember all that then you have the solution that El Naschie proposed. Herman Weyl’s ideas worked perfectly in a fractal spacetime. There is no prejudice to the integer 10 except what comes out of scaling. Take for instance half of the inverse of the electromagnetic fine structure constant. Apply Weyl scaling. The multiplier is the golden mean. In seconds you generate all the Heterotic string hierarchy. All numbers are integer plus or minus a transfinite number k. The only exception is 10. 10 comes out clean. The same applies to the independent component of the Riemann tensor. For instance in four dimensions you have 256 components. Only 20 of them survive after taking the rest out due to symmetry arguments. Now your value is 20. It is not 20 plus k. It is 20 not because you are using decimal system. It is 20 because of the golden mean binary system or Weyl scaling or E-infinity theory or whatever you like to call these elementary tricks. It reminds me of the Dutch scientist who said it is a wonder although it is not a wonder. For the sake of honesty, when this explanation was first presented based on the golden mean binary to El Naschie, he was skeptical. The paper was by one of his students M. Ahmed. He rejected the paper. I do not think it has ever been published. When El Naschie discovered he was wrong he apologized to his student and made it known everywhere that it is due to Ahmed. This is typical for El Naschie. He has no problem admitting a mistake no matter how embarrassing it is. Later on El Naschie discovered that phi and its power solves the problem and contradiction of the quantum. Like a Cantor set it is there and it is not there. The real geometrical quantum is there and is not there. As for the student of El Naschie, I think Mr. Jason could make a handstand. No one of them will talk to him. Actually I heard Ayman saying I will never talk to it. Although it talks. I hope you got the point. Best regards, E-infinity Connoisseur Ray Munroe replied on Mar. 15, 2010 @ 19:59 GMT Dear E-Infinity Connoisseaur, I like the scaling properties of these numbers. Georgina and I were discussing Fibonacci's sequence and its scaling properties on FQXi's Beautiful Truth blog, and I referred her to El Naschie's and Len Malinowski's work. Why does 10 come out clean? This bothers me because the normalization choice seems to be either: 1) that's what fits expectations the best, or 2) it is chosen to fit our base 10 numbering system. Neither answer is exactly a proof for my tastes. I'm sorry. I don't intend to sound stubborn, but it bothers me, and I think I see another way towards a GUT/TOE that does not make that assumption. I would love to see someone prove the concept that "A stable infinity exists because fractals exist". I have remained neutral towards Jason, although I have talked to "it". I am not surprised that Ayman won't talk to "it". It is easier to stay clear of the mud slinging when you don't get involved with the slingers. Have Fun! Ray Ray Munroe replied on Mar. 16, 2010 @ 13:13 GMT Dear E-Infinity Connoisseaur, Upon further thought, I think we are intermingling theory and modeling to the point that we forget which is which. As an example, my book introduces the concept of Quantum Statistical Grand Unified Theory. The theory is laid out in Postulates 1 and 2. The model is presented in Equation 8. This model is not special - it was chosen to fit the observed reality. Likewise, El Naschie's theory is the Golden Ratio, and E-Infinity is a specific, non-unique, model that fits certain expectations that El Naschie has of Nature (normalizing the Golden Sequence on 10 to simplify calculations and to fit alpha-bar theory). If I develop another model that depends on Golden Ratio theory, that would not directly overthrow E-Infinity unless it happened to do everything better than E-Infinity (and I am not making that claim at this point). As such, I will continue to keep an open mind regarding El Nascie's ideas. Have Fun! Ray The fabriac of E-infinity wrote on Mar. 16, 2010 @ 11:08 GMT "No one can take us out of the E-infinite paradise created for us by El naschie, I see it but I can't believe it" Ping-Bong He " El nascheism is a new brand of physical and mathematical theories that always flourishes into gold, for example golden quantum field theory, golden differential geometry, golden topology, golden market etc.... The essence of the idea is to make gold more cheap that could solve the global economic crisis beside scientific ones ." Ed. Nash (From the game of life) M.B. wrote on Mar. 16, 2010 @ 12:15 GMT The connection between art and quantum gravity is well documented dear friends. We tend to overlook the obvious. We get so familiar with certain things to the extent that we forget them. How else could someone forget that Escher’s tiling, 4 dimensional triangulation, a Regge calculus, Penrose fractal tiling and the 17 wallpaper groups as well as the 17 two and three Stein spaces proposed by El Naschie for quantum gravity are variations on one theme, namely quantum gravity. Did you all forget what Regge initially proposed? He was dealing with gravity for God’s sake. The method is known in many branches of science as a physical realization of the finite difference method. Such realization is called finite element method. The great pioneer in this respect is a Greek/German/British professor who used to hold a Chair at Imperial College and Stuttgart simultaneously, Prof. Dr. John Argyris. He is the pioneer on this field. He wrote many papers dedicated to El Naschie’s theory. One famous paper, although I did not particularly like it, was entitled On Mohamed El Naschie’s conjugate complex time. The point is tiling in the wider sense as fractal tiling is an exercise in noncommutative geometry projected as a holographic boundary corresponding to a manifold representing the theory of everything, including gravity. There is more to Escher than meets the eyes. There was once a conference in the Royal Society. I invited a great scientist from the Soviet Union. He is a simple person like many Russian academicians. His main diet is milk and bread and he never wears a tie although he is one of the pioneers of a new field combining nonlinear dynamics and quantum mechanics which I will not name so that you do not know for sure who the man in question is and I give him the benefit of anonymity on aggressive blogs. The great scientist was worried about having a tie for the Royal Society. He wrote to me asking should I have a tie, should I buy one. I answered free yourself of all ties. Could I recommend that scientifically speaking to the readers of these blogs. I would like to remind you of the beautiful Voderberg Tiling. It is a spiral. Yes, you can tile space seamlessly using spirals. Some spirals as you know are intimately connected to the golden mean. When they ramify at infinity they can be seen from far to be worthy of a Cantor set. That is why I am sure El Naschie’s theory is correct although I did not read much about it and I never had the chance to meet him. As for those who have nothing else to do but bad mouth other people and write all sorts of viscous comments, I have also a tiling argument for them. Germany has overproduced in physics graduates. Our England is not much better. You could say you could tile the streets of Germany these days with physicists out of work. As a result you have these blogs. It is a sad fact of life, at least life as we know it at present. May the force be with us and may the future bring us better things. this post was moved here from a different topic Steve Dufourny replied on Mar. 16, 2010 @ 12:38 GMT Hi MB, It is interesting that, do you know if Prof. Dr. John Argyris works about a finite system where the proportionalities with mass are respected. I agree about the E infinity, I think Prof El Nashie is a very competent scientist but I can't agree with his infinity for the uniqueness.The quantum serie is finite and the number is specific too.... I am going to see more about Prof. Dr. John Argyris and his work. Regards Steve M.B. wrote on Mar. 16, 2010 @ 12:20 GMT The connection between art and quantum gravity is well documented dear friends. We tend to overlook the obvious. We get so familiar with certain things to the extent that we forget them. How else could someone forget that Escher’s tiling, 4 dimensional triangulation, a Regge calculus, Penrose fractal tiling and the 17 wallpaper groups as well as the 17 two and three Stein spaces proposed by El Naschie for quantum gravity are variations on one theme, namely quantum gravity. Did you all forget what Regge initially proposed? He was dealing with gravity for God’s sake. The method is known in many branches of science as a physical realization of the finite difference method. Such realization is called finite element method. The great pioneer in this respect is a Greek/German/British professor who used to hold a Chair at Imperial College and Stuttgart simultaneously, Prof. Dr. John Argyris. He is the pioneer on this field. He wrote many papers dedicated to El Naschie’s theory. One famous paper, although I did not particularly like it, was entitled On Mohamed El Naschie’s conjugate complex time. The point is tiling in the wider sense as fractal tiling is an exercise in noncommutative geometry projected as a holographic boundary corresponding to a manifold representing the theory of everything, including gravity. There is more to Escher than meets the eyes. There was once a conference in the Royal Society. I invited a great scientist from the Soviet Union. He is a simple person like many Russian academicians. His main diet is milk and bread and he never wears a tie although he is one of the pioneers of a new field combining nonlinear dynamics and quantum mechanics which I will not name so that you do not know for sure who the man in question is and I give him the benefit of anonymity on aggressive blogs. The great scientist was worried about having a tie for the Royal Society. He wrote to me asking should I have a tie, should I buy one. I answered free yourself of all ties. Could I recommend that scientifically speaking to the readers of these blogs. I would like to remind you of the beautiful Voderberg Tiling. It is a spiral. Yes, you can tile space seamlessly using spirals. Some spirals as you know are intimately connected to the golden mean. When they ramify at infinity they can be seen from far to be worthy of a Cantor set. That is why I am sure El Naschie’s theory is correct although I did not read much about it and I never had the chance to meet him. As for those who have nothing else to do but bad mouth other people and write all sorts of viscous comments, I have also a tiling argument for them. Germany has overproduced in physics graduates. Our England is not much better. You could say you could tile the streets of Germany these days with physicists out of work. As a result you have these blogs. It is a sad fact of life, at least life as we know it at present. May the force be with us and may the future bring us better things. Real Men wrote on Mar. 16, 2010 @ 13:01 GMT You do not need gold. Said Elnashaie, history abounds with people as cheap as you are. Taking you and your servants John Baez, Quirin Schiermeier, Ahmed Gaber, Christoph Drosser directed by the Count of all parasites Marqis Jason de Sade, one could tile the universe with you. Maybe then you will come to fame and your tormented souls may rest besides Dracula. You ask how do I know it is you and not one of the other parasites who write these things? It is this deep seated burning jealousy and the colossal inferiority complexes which you have reflected all your life. You resent your ugly face and that you are incapable of looking anyone in the eyes. It was pathetic to see how you were begging the judge to acknowledge that it is you and not Mohamed that is known to have a kind heart. Everybody in Egypt knows what heart you have. They know how low you are. They know that you are the source of all the evil you are spreading against Mohamed El Naschie for no other reason than that he is a better human being than you. In fact I know of nobody who is not better than you Said. The more you resist the truth, the more you sink into the depths of the sewer where you ultimately will remain. We all despise you from the depth of our existence. Jason replied on Mar. 16, 2010 @ 15:28 GMT Real Men, I could be wrong but I doubt Said Elnashaie is following this thread at all. E-infinity 8 wrote on Mar. 16, 2010 @ 18:46 GMT E-infinity communication No. 8 The E-infinity counterpart of calculus – and Wyle scaling It is my intention to start by making specific reference to the literature concerning the last communication which was omitted. The important noncommutative dimension which we used was given in detail in Connes marvelous book Noncommutative Geometry, Academic Press, 1994. The formula is given on page 506. He uses slightly different notation but everything is explained lucidly. You can understand subfactors from the wonderful book by V. Jones and V.S. Sunder called Introduction to Subfactors by Cambridge University Press, 1997. You may recall that Jones is the man who found the remarkable relation between knot theory and statistical mechanics. Much of what Mohamed El Naschie did could be reinterpreted in terms of Jones’ work. The relevant formula may be found on page 31 of this book. Several other important formulas may be found on page 143 and you can move from there to study how quantum field theory can be derived from subfactors. Believe me it all sounds far more complex than it is. Oh and there is an important paper by Mohamed El Naschie which has much of this stuff published in the Int. Journal of Theoretical Physics, Vol. 37, No. 12, 1998 entitled Superstrings, Knots and Noncommutative Geometry in E-infinity Space. The Editor in Chief of this journal at the time was no one less than the legendary David Finkelstein. David you will recall is one of the main people responsible for introducing set theory in quantum mechanics. Following Heisenberg and Finkelstein, Prof. Heinrich Saller excelled in developing a highly mathematical theory starting from a combination of symmetry groups and set theory. We warn however that this is very demanding mathematically for the average physicist. However if you would at least have a glance at the work of Saller, you will see high energy physics and quantum mechanics from a profoundly important and different view point which is not that dissimilar from that of what El Naschie is doing using what is comparatively humble mathematical tools. Some of our members think I should move now to explaining the main tools of computation which we have in E-infinity theory. This would be Wyle scale. Other members think that we should no introduce the transfinite theory of dimensions which is the mathematical founding of E-infinity theory. A sizeable minority think we should outline the connection to wild topology and a few other disciplines used frequently in E-infinity theory. We will have to do all of that in the few coming communications. However I am inclined to think that it is time to introduce at least one simple example of the scaling analysis. If you look to the beginning of the work of Nottale you realize that this eminent and great French scientist agonized about differentiation. He was slightly on the loose side when he equated fractals with non-differentiability. That brought him into conflict with fractal experts like the great Israeli scientist Itamar Proccacia. However the dispute is merely a misunderstanding when temperament takes over reasoning. Nottale like Ord and later on El Naschie realized the need for calculus machinery but he also realized that differentiation and similarly integration covers up all the interesting phenomena and leads us in the wrong direction. Ord in particular realized that taking the limit is the source of all contradictions in quantum mechanics. That is how Nottale decided for a compromise, albeit an ingenious one. Nottale does not give up continuity. For him a Cantor set is excluded a priori as the basis of the calculation. Therefore he used non-standard analysis in his calculations. That is how he came to most of his excellent results. Garnet Ord somehow managed to avoid taking the limit of his difference equations. In a manner of speech and in a way which Ord does not particularly like, you could say that he invented his own quantum calculus. Of course Garnet sees it completely different nowadays and he has grown more sophisticated about these things but for the purposes of this communication, it is sufficient to think of it in this way. In noncommutative geometry Alain Connes was faced with similar problems like the pioneers of E-infinity. Being one of the greatest pure and applied mathematicians in the history of mathematics he had of course a sophisticated solution. Without going into the detail, let me give you a very short dictionary of the noncommutative solution. Alain Connes introduced a quantized calculus for which the following short dictionary applies. First infinitesimal is replaced by compact operators. Second integral is replaced by a Dixmier trace which is incidentally also used by El Naschie. The table for classical quantum correspondence in noncommutative geometry is given on page 20 of Alain Connes book which we mentioned earlier. El Naschie as well as Ji-Huan He and Marek-Crnjac and occasionally Goldfain use something else. They return to Wyle scaling. Fractals has a marvelous character expressed in Bidenharn conjecture. The conjecture says the obvious that there are no a priori scales, man or God given, in a fractal spacetime. Therefore the counter argument of Einstein against Wyle’s idea does not apply in a fractal spacetime. The history of the whole controversy and its solution in E-infinity theory is duly explained in several papers by Mohamed El Naschie as well as a review by L. Marek-Crnjac. I will give you the exact reference later on. The final result is disarmingly simple. You are more or less scaling down when you want to differentiate and scaling up when you want to integrate. The words differentiate and integrate should not be now taken literally. Prof. Ji-Huan He likes to say that scaling is everything. In E-infinity at least, this is as near to the truth as anything could be. Let us discuss one example demonstrating the application of this idea and generating El Naschie’s hierarchy of Heterotic strings. You recall in classical mechanics when you want the equation of equilibrium you write a Lagrangian, then the vanishing of the first variation of this Lagrangian gives you the equation of equilibrium or motion. In very simple cases when the Lagrangian is a function rather than a functional, variation is replaced by simple differentiation. In E-infinity things are far simpler than that to the extent that some who expect to lift heavy weights are shocked and left in a state of disbelief because of the simplicity which they did not expect. For certain manifolds involving E-infinity the curvature may be given by very simple expressions. Squaring the curvature you find a normalized energy. If you can identify a certain parameter as a loading and you can calculate the distance which this loading can potentially move, then you have an equilibrium equation. Alternatively if somehow you convince yourself that you have what is equivalent to a Lagrangian, then repeated scaling gives you the answer for equilibrium equation or equation of motion. Suppose I convince you that half of the inverse of the electromagnetic fine structure constant may be regarded physically and correctly as the numerical value of the Lagrangian. In this case repeated scaling using the golden mean will give you the solution of corresponding equilibrium equation or equation of motion. Again this sounds far more complex than when you really do it. Let us do it. Half alpha bar is equal to 137.082039325 divided by two equal to 68.541020. Multiply this now repeatedly with the golden mean 0.618033989. The result is then the following hierarchy 42.360680, 26.180340, 16.180340, 10, 6.180340, 3.819660 and so on. This is the well known Heterotic string hierarchy in the transfinite form. The first value is the inverse coupling constant for non-super symmetric unification of all fundamental forces. The second is the coupling constant for super symmetry or the number of bosonic strings. The 16.180340 relates to the additional dimensions added. The 10 are the super string dimensions. The 6.180340 are compactified dimensions and the final number is 4 minus k where 4 are the dimensions of spacetime and k is equal 0.18034 which appears in all other numbers. The explanation of all that is given in detail somewhere else but obtaining the result is less than elementary as far as computation is concerned. Let me show you first how we obtain the original equation. El Naschie showed long ago that the average curvature of Cantorian spacetime at the core is equal to 26.18033989. Squaring this you get the energy in normalized form which is 685.410197. If you remember, this is the dimension of Ray Munroe’s E12. Not quite but very near. It is also very close to the sum of the dimension of all the 17 two and three Stein spaces. Not quite but very near. Introducing a loading lambda index I, then we can define a potential distance equal to the square root of the sum of all theoretical values of the coupling involved in reconstructing the inverse electromagnetic fine structure constant. This is 60, 30, 8 + 1 = 9, and the quantum gravity coupling 1. Adding altogether comes to exactly 100. The square root is therefore 10. Lambda I is therefore equal to 685.410197 divided by 10. This gives us exactly the value we started with namely 68.5410197. When you scale it you get lambda 1 equal to 42.360680, lambda 2 equal to 26.180340 and so on. This is extremely simple isn’t it? It is simple but difficult to understand. It is only difficult to understand because of our habits of thinking which we do not want to get rid of easily. Remember we must free ourselves from all ties as Prof. M. B. once said. I am sure you have hundreds of questions. I can assure you if you are not shocked and if you have no questions, then could not possibly have understood anything. Best regards, J.A. wrote on Mar. 16, 2010 @ 18:58 GMT Dear Ray, Richard Feynman told me once that you should not hold an exotic delicate bird so strongly that you strangulate it and you should not hold it so loosely in your hands that it flies away and you lose it. You do the same with theory, particularly new avante garde theories. Richard Feynman is and will always remain my hero. No one could flatter me at my 80th birthday by more than comparing me to him, even if it is only the number of ladies I have courted. Richard once said to Garnet Ord do not give up an idea because it does not fit and do not continue to force an idea on things by fooling yourself. You should not keep an open mind only. You must discriminate at one point or another. El Naschie’s theory could be perfect. A different theory could also be perfect. They are then members of a conformal family. This issue too was addressed by El Naschie after Gerard ‘tHooft introduced him to conformal field theory. All what El Naschie knows about classical quantum field theory was taught to him by Gerard ‘tHooft. All what ‘tHooft knows about nonlinear dynamics and negative dimensions was taught to him by El Naschie. Do not take my word for anything, just read the literature tentatively and carefully. I always enjoy reading your comments Ray. I read somewhere that you do not want anybody to direct you personally. If this is true, my apology and I will not do it again but please confirm you do not want me to do that. With my best wishes to you and everybody who is inclined scientifically like you. Ray Munroe replied on Mar. 16, 2010 @ 22:08 GMT Dear J.A., I will answer anyone who addresses me civilly - time permitting. I do wish that I knew who I was really talking with, rather than addressing anonymous J.A.'s, Ahmeds, Mareks (Marks?), Aymans, etc. I think the breakdown in communication arises because theory isn't stated clearly as theory, and phenomenological modeling isn't stated clearly as modeling. I actually like much of El Naschie's modeling, but details seem lacking. E-Infinity number 8 gave the example of alpha bar theory, but alpha bar is not 137.082039325. A prejudice was built into this first assumption. That prejudice seems to center this Golden Sequence on the integer 10. I have worked through this example many times both awake and asleep (yes - it plagues my dreams - luckily it is easy enough to approximate powers of the Golden Ratio with Fibonacci's Sequence that it doesn't disturb my sleep too much). I think this was not the best choice for normalization. But if it is close, then theoretical errors will scale with k^2, and k is small (0.18034), so maybe I'm being too picky. I haven't fully accepted the idea, or thrown the idea away, but my applications may spin off differently. Don't take it personally, I also haven't fully accepted the Standard Model. Have Fun! Ray J. R. wrote on Mar. 16, 2010 @ 20:40 GMT Richard Feynman also told me I don't mean by open mind vac mind. Jason replied on Mar. 17, 2010 @ 02:00 GMT Can you translate that from gibberish to English? The fabraic of E-infinity wrote on Mar. 17, 2010 @ 08:37 GMT Today we will tell you another story about the great man El naschie. Once a time the great man deviated from his simple strategy (counting on his golden fingers) and decided to use computers. Upon counting on his fingers the great man can attack many of the most difficult problems in theoretical and mathematical physics. What might be his aim if he used computer, of course would be one of the most difficult intractable problem namely Riemann hypothesis which last for 150 years. His ambitious target to prove Riemann conjecture or at least to uncover numerical violation. The story unfolded that way http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0008056v1 On plausible violations of the Riemann conjecture due to fractal p-branes in Cantorian-Fractal Spacetime Carlos Castro, M. S. El Naschie, J. Mahecha It is explicitly shown using a Mathematica package that non-trivial complex zeroes of the Riemann zeta function may exist which {\bf do not} lie in the critical line:$ Re ~ s = 1/2\$. The generation of the location of these plausible zeroes, that may violate the Riemann conjecture, is based on the study of fractal strings/branes moving in a Cantorian-Fractal spacetime. Since this result was very strange we did a search for any possible bugs in the package. We found that the package yields {\bf spurious} zeroes {\bf without any warning} when the variables are evaluated up to 16 decimal places. However when calculations are performed up to 40 decimal places there is a {\bf huge} discrepancy. Therefore it is warranted that true analytical calculations be performed to verify without any doubts whether these zeroes are spurious or not.

The great man was unlucky to be confronted by golden bugs that destroyed his result. This golden bug annoys the fractal strings/branes moving in a Cantorian-Fractal spacetime.

The great man did not give up and struggled through second version of the paper

http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0008056v2

then third version

http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0008056v3 in which The incorrect affiliation of M. S. El Naschie was removed (The great man forged Cambridge affiliation.).

Finally the paper was withdrawn due garbage content and affiliation arrogation.

http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0008056v4

Comments: v3: The incorrect affiliation of M. S. El Naschie was removed. v4: This paper has been withdrawn

I suggest for the great man to prove Riemann conjecture using golden number in that way

x^2 - x - 1 = 0 define the golden ratio

if you complete square in the previous equation to get

(x- 1/2)^2 - 5/4 = 0,

here the surprise this fraction 1/2 represent the real part of the non trivial zeros of Riemann zeta function, and this can be directly related to VAC conjecture for which the most stable orbit must have winding number equal to the golden ratio, Eureka, Eureka .....Eureka

Ray Munroe replied on Mar. 17, 2010 @ 12:24 GMT
And of course, zeta(3/2)~(1.618)^2.

Jason replied on Mar. 17, 2010 @ 15:20 GMT
The fabraic of E-infinity, email me if you want to do a guest blog on El Naschie Watch.
Ray, zeta(3/2) and phi^2 differ by 0.005658640064 which is only moderately small. Nothing to get excited about. But maybe you were just going along with the Eureka joke?

Ray Munroe replied on Mar. 17, 2010 @ 16:24 GMT
You like my Eureka comment? Just pointing out apparent similarities. I haven't run serious calculations. x^2 - x - 1 = 0 does define the golden ratio.

E-infinity 9 wrote on Mar. 17, 2010 @ 22:46 GMT
E-infinity communication No. 9

Wyle scaling and deriving the spectral dimension 4.02 of Loll, Ambjorn and Jurkiewicz using E-infinity

There is no reason why we should not continue with our discussion and give further examples of the use of golden Wyle scaling in E-infinity. We have to take the opportunity first to draw the attention of the readers to the literature where details are given. The most important three papers which can be consulted on this subject are the following: From classical gauge theory back to Weyl scaling via E-infinity spacetime by M. S. El Naschie, Chaos, Solitons & Fractals (CS&F), 38, 2008, p. 980, A Feynman path integral-like method for deriving the four dimensionality of spacetime from first principles by L. Marek-Crnjac, CS&F, 41, 2009, p. 2471 and Density manifolds, geometric measures and high-energy physics in transfinite dimensions by S.I. Nada, CS&F, 42, 2009, p. 1539.

To explain the main idea in the most excessively simplistic terms you could say the following. There is a fundamental difference between changing direction in space and stretching a line in space. In the first case nothing really physical happened while in the second case something almost physical happened. That was the crux of Einstein’s objection against Wyle’s gauge theory. Lacking a natural scale, in a fractal setting a stretching can be set on the same footing as changing an angle. You read the rest please in the relevant literature. By the way many people know this trick and that is why fractal spacetime is becoming fashionable and will become even more fashionable as time goes by, so you can play it again Sam.

Let me now return to examples of Wyle scaling and we can do two things for the price of one. We give another example and derive the spectral dimension given for instance in the paper of Ambjorn, Jurkiewicz and Loll in Scientific American or the improved version they published in a book Edited by Daniele Oriti entitled Approaches to Quantum Gravity, published by Cambridge, 2009 a few years after the first derivation by El Naschie using Bose Einstein statistics. The excellent paper by the three authors who are world renowned for simplictic triangulation, in other words, tiling the space with simplexes which again means Regge calculus or finite element of John Argyris who was one of Mohamed El Naschie’s teachers in Stuttgart, Germany and Imperial College, London is entitled Quantum Gravity: the art of building spacetime on page 341-359. The important formula is on page 352.

It is interesting to ask why the pioneer of the holographic boundary did not find this result first. I do not know but we cannot all work on everything simultaneously. A reasonable explanation may be the following. The expert on the holographic boundary did not care about the 336 because they know once they compactify we get infinity and physicists do not like infinity and do not work with it. Mohamed El Naschie on the other hand took a gamma distribution weighted infinitely compactified Klein modular curve which added approximately 3 to the 336 to get approximately 339 which is a finite result and meaningful. He was also able to deal with a fuzzy K3 manifold and find the instanton number to change from the classical 24 to 26.18033. This is incidentally equal to the dimension of transfinite Heterotic strings as well as the corresponding Euler constant as well as the curvature which we discussed in an earlier communication. 26.18033 turned out to be an extremely important number. People interested in number theory knew that much earlier but did not know about any relevance in physics. Nobel laureate David Gross must be credited with super natural intuition to have invented Heterotic string theory. Witten and his friends were probably the first to introduce K3 to physics. So you can see string theory is not in any way as useless as some of its opponents want us to believe. Nothing is useless except underestimating people. Nothing is as harmful as belittling the achievements of other people. Nothing is as revolting as the yellow jokes of envious souls who ceaselessly inundate us with their superfluous comments, polluting the blogosphere with their inferiority complexes. You can find explicit calculations of the spectral dimension in several papers recently published in Chaos, Solitons & Fractals. For instance From Menger-Urysohn to Hausdorff dimensions in high energy physics by G. Iovane, 42, 2009, p. 2338 and On the Menger-Urysohn theory of Cantorian manifolds and transfinite dimensions in physics by Guo-Cheng Wu and Ji-Huan He, 42, 2009, p. 781. Also A Feynman path integral-like method for deriving the four dimensionality of spacetime from first principles by L. Marek-Crnjac, 41, 2008, p. 2471 and Density manifolds, geometric measures and high-energy physics in transfinite dimensions by S.I. Nada, 42, 2009, p. 1539.

I think by now anyone who has attentively read the last nine communications must be able to derive on his own the basic and fundamental dimensions of fractal spacetime, namely the topological dimension 4, the Hausdorff dimension 4 plus the golden mean to the power of 3, the scaling dimension 4 minus k equal to the golden mean square to the power of 10 and finally the spectral dimension which is 4.02. The work of Loll and her crew is remarkable in that they got the exact result without having the complete theory. They were right to think that only a computer can get this result right. I say only a computer or E-infinity theory and nothing in between. They may have wrongly led people to think that 4.02 is a Hausdorff dimension or a topological dimension for quantum spacetime. It is not. It is an exact dimension for the spectral dimension of quantum spacetime. In a sense this is an even more important dimension because it measures how spacetime unfolds. It looks at it as a dynamical process, not as a statical process. It looks at it like ink spreading in water. They should be commended for their handiwork. What a pity that they were not aware of all what we have done in the last 15 years using E-infinity theory and fractal spacetime and what a pity that people can sometimes be so individualistic that they cannot see the achievements of others. Cooperation is always much better than meaningless struggle against others. At the end of the day, at least in E-infinity, we have benefitted from all the sound ideas of well developed careful theories like string theory, loop quantum mechanics, holographic principles, Penrose tiling, noncommutative geometry and so on and so forth. I sincerely hope you agree with us, at least on this.

Annonymous wrote on Mar. 18, 2010 @ 09:29 GMT

There are now more people reading E-infinity than you think. Let’s not get tied down with nonsense. There is one comment which provoked me. Scientific provocation that is. It is said, and rightly so, that there is nothing called a stupid question. The dumber a question is, the more we can clarify misunderstanding based on semantics and prejudice. The comment regarding 137.082039325 is by far the worse. It shows total misunderstanding not of E-infinity only, but of science. It shows that the person in question is mixing between mingling experimental data with mathematics on the one side and the clear distinction between model building, mathematical that is and a fully fledged theory. If I understand ‘tHooft correctly he always laments that leading scientists who develop excellent mathematical models more often than not market it using false labels and sell it as a theory. Surely these are modern times of commercial internet and wheeler dealers, even on the level of prestigious prizes in physics. E-infinity is a theory. It is genuinely a fundamental theory. 137.082…. is from the world of theory. If you read at a minimum El Naschie’s famous review article, A review of E-infinity, then you know the experimental value is obtained by projection from 137.082… to find the almost exact experimental value of 137.03….. El Naschie was at pain to explain the difference and the projection formula is given explicitly. It was given explicitly in two dozen papers by El Naschie, his students and collaborators of which I am aware. You must understand the difference. A theory like string theory in ten dimensions or M-theory in eleven dimensions or F-theory in twelve dimensions or E-infinity in infinite dimensions cannot take any measurement in these higher dimensions. Measurements, whether we like it or not are taken in our 3 + 1 familiar spacetime. It is very doubtful that any man however superior, like Ed Witten, Penrose or Einstein himself could construct a laboratory in five or more dimensions to satisfy the theory through measurement. Of course we then translate everything from theory to experiment. That is why we have things like mathematics, imagination and intuition. To be sure, the ideal E-infinity value has not been postulated. It was deduced. How? Just read the papers. A mother, however kind, can do nothing more than feed the baby. Regardless of how careful and kind she is, and regardless how young and fragile the baby is, her job ends with giving the food on the spoon into his mouth. The baby must digest the food. I swear to God I am not being patronizing, big headed or arrogant. This is not at all my nature. I am a humble almost mediocre mathematician. I was just thrown out of equilibrium by the comment. I was disheartened that after so much, there is such a deep fundamental understanding of basic principles of scientific research. Let me explain to you how I understand El Naschie’s heuristic derivation of 137.082… He gave other mathematical derivations as well as physical derivations. However the present heuristic one is what I find best. It comes out of a heuristic derivation based on the renormalization group equation of quantum field theory. Take the experimental values of the electroweak and round them to a neat integer. It will not take much to find out that the inverse alphas are 60, 30, 9 and unity. In addition you replace the group theoretical fudging factor by the golden mean scaling. Thus the familiar Clibsch is replaced by 1.618033989. Pretty close are everything to the familiar values. Our reconstruction of the inverse electromagnetic fine structure constant becomes in this case the following. 60 multiplied with the inverse golden mean plus 30 plus 9 plus 1 where 1 is the coupling constant of the Planck masses to the Planck Aether. El Naschie says if you do the calculation correction you will find 137.082… comes out like magic. This shows that the correct theoretical values are 60, 30, 9 and 1. The first three were verified experimentally with the accuracy of measurement of our present day facilities at CERN and Fermi Lab. Some got the Nobel prize for it. The unity requires Planck energy to verify experimentally which is probably for ever outside of our reach, experimentally speaking. However the present calculation and much of El Naschie’s reasoning are compelling proof that this is correct. The whole procedure is referred to in detail in El Naschie’s paper with the telling title Transfinite harmonization by taking the dissonance out of the quantum field symphony. Published in Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, 36, 2008, p. 781. Why do I know so much is probably the next obligatory question from this permanent uninvited guest on this blog. As El Naschie would say, because I do not spend my time defaming people and writing triviality unworthy of a man who calls himself a man. Others would prefer a less elegant answer but I will decline to use this language out of respect to the Blogmaster and readers. Let me conclude by quoting a few first words of the Abstract and the closing words of the conclusion of the mentioned paper. Particle physics may be likened to a magnificent symphony….. We conclude by restating our conviction that nonlinear dynamics, chaos and fractals will revolutionize the way we think about our high energy physics problems. I hope this is useful for the readers.

The fabriac of E-infinity wrote on Mar. 18, 2010 @ 11:28 GMT
I hope E-infinity will correct the name of Weyl it is not Wyle. I hope E-infinity would take this into consideration next time. Try at least to write scientists' names correctly. You should learn the lesson from Helm Holz Inst

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weyl

For Ray Munroe

for golden ratio

Ray Munroe replied on Mar. 18, 2010 @ 12:42 GMT
Dear 'The fabriac of E-infinity',

In America, we spell it fabric, not fabriac.

I have been familiar with the Golden Ratio long before I ever heard of El Naschie. If you look at that Wikipedia link, they define the Golden Ratio the same way that I prefer, as 1.618... rather than 0.618..., but of course I understand the meaning either way.

In E-Infinity's posting #8, alpha-bar was assumed to be

alpha-bar (assumed) = 137.082039325.

I understand that this is consistent with El Naschie's E-Infinity theory and normalizing the Golden Sequence on the integer 10 (i.e. double the Fibonacci Sequence and you get 2,2,4,6,10,16,26,42,68,...). However, this does not agree with the Particle Data Group's measurement of alpha-bar (see attached file):

alpha-bar (measured) = 137.035 999 679 (94)

in the low-energy renomalization scale limit (Q^2=0). A difference of 0.04604 which is much greater than the experimental error of 0.000000094). Of course, this inverse coupling gets *SMALLER* (not larger) with renormalization scale such that alpha-bar ~ 128 at the W mass scale.

It is my contention that E-Infinity, as it is traditionally described, is not exact enough to satisfy High Energy Physicists expectations. However, it is designed for simple calculations on your 'golden fingers' because it is easy to calculate powers of the Golden Ratio using Fibonacci's Sequence, and it is easy to calculate powers of 10.

Have Fun!

Ray

attachments: rpp2009revphysconstants.pdf

T H Ray wrote on Mar. 18, 2010 @ 12:04 GMT
E-Infinity:

You wrote: "To explain the main idea in the most excessively simplistic terms you could say the following. There is a fundamental difference between changing direction in space and stretching a line in space. In the first case nothing really physical happened while in the second case something almost physical happened."

One wants to know what you mean by "physical" here. In special relativity, the physics of uniform motion--which is what I assume you mean by "stretching a line in space"--one can say in some manner of speaking that "nothing physical happens" between massless particles (photons) at any distance on the line, because no energy is exchanged and no time lapsed. In general relativity, the physics of accelerated motion (and acceleration is of course defined as a change of direction in space), spacetime is critically and specifically assumed to be physically real (In Einstein's words, physically real means " ... independent in its physical properties, having a physical effect but not itself influenced by physical conditions.").

My point is, if one is going to--as Einstein did most poignantly--try and differentiate physical effects from mathematical artifacts, one must do so in no uncertain terms, and leave aside discussion of what one merely thinks is "physical," or "almost physical." What does that mean? The conclusion of special relativity, for example, is very clear in its physics: E = M. The statement is complete, closed and unambiguous. It took Einstein (and concurrently, Poincare) to recognize that the constant, c--the speed of light--is a mathematical artifact and not part of the statement.

So if you want to hang your theory on those "excessively simplistic terms" above, one wants to know what is physical in the theory and what is not, and how you differentiate; otherwise, either none of it makes sense, or it's all mathematical artifact and no physics.

Tom

this post was moved here from a different topic

T H Ray wrote on Mar. 18, 2010 @ 16:13 GMT
Anonymous,

I think you missed the point of Ray Munroe's article. If there is a difference between your theoretical value and the experimental value, it is not because your theory has extra dimensions. It is either because 1) the experimental method is defective; or 2) because your extra dimensions have an independent physical effect that would change the value.

If we assume that there is nothing wrong with the experimental value as it stands, then saying that the "correct" measurement is conditioned by the Planck energy is contrary to the meaning of "measurement." It would be more convincing to explain how your theory predicts the experimental value in the low energy limit (as string theory does with its predictions of the fundamental forces and gravity); maybe in one or more of those papers mentioned, you do this--if so, please cite and explain.

Otherwise, you leave yourself open to criticism such as Ray's -- that your theory is only a numerical approximation technique (and thus of not much interest to physics).

Tom

Jason wrote on Mar. 18, 2010 @ 21:55 GMT
Hey did you all see that CSF is coming back to life? Are you E-infinity people going to start submitting papers there again?

Anonymous wrote on Mar. 19, 2010 @ 18:36 GMT
To J.A. on Mar. 16, 2010 @ 18:58 GMT

Dear J. A.

"All what El Naschie knows about classical quantum field theory was taught to him by Gerard ‘tHooft. All what ‘tHooft knows about nonlinear dynamics and negative dimensions was taught to him by El Naschie."

What do you mean by classical quantum filed theory, according to my modest knowledge there are classical field theory and quantum field theory, unless El naschie merged them into a single coherent structure. I mean by using holographic principle you can relate classical theory in bulk with quantum theory on boundary. Also using the fusion algebra invented by El naschie you tie quantum and classical in a single parcel where the holographic principle is trivially satisfied in fractal geometry. Tiny trans-infinite corrections marginally alter this picture. Do you agree J. A. ?

Also, did Feynman tel you about El naschie - Feynman hypothesis. I am curious to know about it and I hope that your memory sill encompasses that while you are eighty years old.

E-infinity 10 wrote on Mar. 19, 2010 @ 23:01 GMT
E-infinity communication 10

Continuation of previous discussion and comments

The best thing to start this section is to repeat the potent comments which were lodged on this very same blog by Anonymous. We agree with all that is said in this comment but would like to amplify it. Let us start by repeating here the comments of the respectable Anonymous person and then we will continue.

Start of Anonymous Comment: The comment regarding 137.082039325 is by far the worse. It shows total misunderstanding not of E-infinity only, but of science. It shows that the person in question is mixing between mingling experimental data with mathematics on the one side and the clear distinction between model building, mathematical that is and a fully fledged theory. If I understand ‘tHooft correctly he always laments that leading scientists who develop excellent mathematical models more often than not market it using false labels and sell it as a theory. Surely these are modern times of commercial internet and wheeler dealers, even on the level of prestigious prizes in physics. E-infinity is a theory. It is genuinely a fundamental theory. 137.082…. is from the world of theory. If you read at a minimum El Naschie’s famous review article, A review of E-infinity, then you know the experimental value is obtained by projection from 137.082… to find the almost exact experimental value of 137.03….. El Naschie was at pain to explain the difference and the projection formula is given explicitly. It was given explicitly in two dozen papers by El Naschie, his students and collaborators of which I am aware. You must understand the difference. A theory like string theory in ten dimensions or M-theory in eleven dimensions or F-theory in twelve dimensions or E-infinity in infinite dimensions cannot take any measurement in these higher dimensions. Measurements, whether we like it or not are taken in our 3 + 1 familiar spacetime. It is very doubtful that any man however superior, like Ed Witten, Penrose or Einstein himself could construct a laboratory in five or more dimensions to satisfy the theory through measurement. Of course we then translate everything from theory to experiment. That is why we have things like mathematics, imagination and intuition. To be sure, the ideal E-infinity value has not been postulated. It was deduced. How? Just read the papers. A mother, however kind, can do nothing more than feed the baby. Regardless of how careful and kind she is, and regardless how young and fragile the baby is, her job ends with giving the food on the spoon into his mouth. The baby must digest the food. I swear to God I am not being patronizing, big headed or arrogant. This is not at all my nature. I am a humble almost mediocre mathematician. I was just thrown out of equilibrium by the comment. I was disheartened that after so much, there is such a deep fundamental understanding of basic principles of scientific research. Let me explain to you how I understand El Naschie’s heuristic derivation of 137.082… He gave other mathematical derivations as well as physical derivations. However the present heuristic one is what I find best. It comes out of a heuristic derivation based on the renormalization group equation of quantum field theory. Take the experimental values of the electroweak and round them to a neat integer. It will not take much to find out that the inverse alphas are 60, 30, 9 and unity. In addition you replace the group theoretical fudging factor by the golden mean scaling. Thus the familiar Clebsch is replaced by 1.618033989. Pretty close are everything to the familiar values. Our reconstruction of the inverse electromagnetic fine structure constant becomes in this case the following. 60 multiplied with the inverse golden mean plus 30 plus 9 plus 1 where 1 is the coupling constant of the Planck masses to the Planck Aether. El Naschie says if you do the calculation correction you will find 137.082… comes out like magic. This shows that the correct theoretical values are 60, 30, 9 and 1. The first three were verified experimentally with the accuracy of measurement of our present day facilities at CERN and Fermi Lab. Some got the Nobel Prize for it. The unity requires Planck energy to verify experimentally which is probably for ever outside of our reach, experimentally speaking. However the present calculation and much of El Naschie’s reasoning are compelling proof that this is correct. The whole procedure is referred to in detail in El Naschie’s paper with the telling title Transfinite harmonization by taking the dissonance out of the quantum field symphony. Published in Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, 36, 2008, p. 781. Particle physics may be likened to a magnificent symphony….. We conclude by restating our conviction that nonlinear dynamics, chaos and fractals will revolutionize the way we think about our high energy physics problems. End of comment.

Now to dwell on what exactly is physical and what exactly is mathematical is not at all the important point. It may be important but it is not important for our purposes here. The vital point is that Einstein’s objection against Weyl is torpedoed and sank like the Bismarck in the North Sea once spacetime is a fractal. The fractal spacetime knows nothing called a priori scale. That is the crux of Bidharn’s intelligent observation forming his conjecture. That is why all theories using sophisticated scaling including what is relatively crude or brutal force computer methods using mesh or lattices along the lines of K. Wilson have all been successful in obtaining results reasonably close to the experimental verification. Again there are no experimental values at all for anything related to quantum physics. The whole idea is that every measurement depends on the energy with which you probe spacetime which means your observation, including the dimensionality of your space, are a function of your resolution. I am afraid we have to give up completely our old classical intuition and adopt a new intuition suitable for quantum physics but what am I saying here? This is really well known and the point is the following. People who work with quantum mechanics, including the Copenhagen version, got so familiar with their measurements that they intuitively do the right thing sometimes without knowing. So let me repeat again, the inverse electromagnetic fine structure constant is 137 or 127 or 42 or 26. It all depends on the energy at which you are probing things. The 26 for instance is where all fundamental forces, including electromagnetism, are exactly of the same strength and this is by the way a super symmetric theory. If you are talking about the Planck scale then we know of course that all the difference between everything disappears and you could say that the electromagnetic fine structure constant became unity. But then you never call it in this case the electromagnetic fine structure constant. You call it in this case the Planck mass coupling. So please be careful here. These are pitfalls but they are well known pitfalls.

Let me give you another two derivations of the inverse electromagnetic find structure constant at higher energy. Let us take the energy connected to Ed Witten’s eleven dimensional 5-Brane theory. The number of states, as is well known, is given by 528. This is more than our E8 E8 496. In this case it is easily shown that particle physics will be represented by our familiar 339 of the holographic boundary. However the graviton sector of Einstein is now a graviton sector of Kaluza Klein. I am not very careful with my terminology here. All what I really mean is that my dimensionality is given by D=5 and not D=4 of Einstein. Therefore I do not have 20 independent components in the Riemann tensor but rather 50. Just to remind you, the number of the independent components is given by n square multiplied with open bracket n square minus one close bracket divided by twelve. For n=4 you get 20 and for n-5 you get 50. The correct value can be shown to be 52 for technical reasons and not just 50 because we will have to use an exceptional Lie group called F4 to take care of the gravity section in this case. El Naschie’s fundamental equation now becomes 528 equals electromagnetism plus 339 plus 52. Trivial arithmetic then shows that electromagnetism must be 137 as it should be.

A final exercise for the reader is to derive 137 but this time from the much larger value of the sum over all 8 exceptional Lie groups family Ei. You remember that this is equal to 548. The analysis is very similar but now the gravity section will be represented again differently. It is not simply obtainable from the Riemann tensor nor is it an F4 group. It is represented by the roots of E6 or alternatively or equivalently by the kissing number of spheres in 6 dimensions. The value in this case is 72. Repeating the same elementary calculation of El Naschie’s fundamental equation you will find that the electromagnetic fine structure constant comes out as 137. There are a few subtle points here and subtle questions which I do not want to burden you with here. However I cannot resist the temptation of showing you a remarkable analysis in 11 dimensions where all the fundamental forces including electromagnetism reach the same magnitude of 339. It is extremely elementary to perform the calculation but the picture behind it is far from being trivial. You start by putting a quantum path in 11 dimensions. A quantum path has a Hausdorff dimension of 2. To put it in 11 dimensions you follow Connes or El Naschie’s bijection formula and raise 2 to the power of 11 minus 1. This is equal to 2 to the power of 10 which is equal to 1024. The number of states corresponding to that is 3 times 339. When you add to that the 7 compactified spacetime dimensions, it comes to exactly 1024 and you have from the 11 dimensions only 4 left. These are our spacetime dimensions which we are all familiar with. Next time we would like to discuss the Menger-Urysohn dimensional system and show you the wonder of the vacuum and how E-infinity has a handle on the vacuum which the great super string theory does not have. Until the next time, thank you for your patience.

Ray Munroe wrote on Mar. 19, 2010 @ 23:59 GMT
Dear E-Infinity #10,

WOW! I can also cut and paste and repeat myself in an obnoxius manner. Here is a prior posting that I thought was relevant:

"I have been familiar with the Golden Ratio long before I ever heard of El Naschie. If you look at that Wikipedia link, they define the Golden Ratio the same way that I prefer, as 1.618... rather than 0.618..., but of course I understand the meaning either way.

In E-Infinity's posting #8, alpha-bar was assumed to be

alpha-bar (assumed) = 137.082039325.

I understand that this is consistent with El Naschie's E-Infinity theory and normalizing the Golden Sequence on the integer 10 (i.e. double the Fibonacci Sequence and you get 2,2,4,6,*EXACTLY 10*,16,26,42,68,...). However, this does not agree with the Particle Data Group's measurement of alpha-bar:

alpha-bar (measured) = 137.035 999 679 (94)

in the low-energy renomalization scale limit (Q^2=0). A difference of 0.04604 which is much greater than the experimental error of 0.000000094). Of course, this inverse coupling gets *SMALLER* (not larger) with renormalization scale such that alpha-bar ~ 128 at the W mass scale.

It is my contention that E-Infinity, as it is traditionally described, is not exact enough to satisfy High Energy Physicists expectations. However, it is designed for simple calculations on your 'golden fingers' because it is easy to calculate powers of the Golden Ratio using Fibonacci's Sequence, and it is easy to calculate powers of 10."

And here is Tom's response to my post:

"I think you missed the point of Ray Munroe's article. If there is a difference between your theoretical value and the experimental value, it is not because your theory has extra dimensions. It is either because 1) the experimental method is defective; or 2) because your extra dimensions have an independent physical effect that would change the value.

If we assume that there is nothing wrong with the experimental value as it stands, then saying that the "correct" measurement is conditioned by the Planck energy is contrary to the meaning of "measurement." It would be more convincing to explain how your theory predicts the experimental value in the low energy limit (as string theory does with its predictions of the fundamental forces and gravity); maybe in one or more of those papers mentioned, you do this--if so, please cite and explain.

Otherwise, you leave yourself open to criticism such as Ray's -- that your theory is only a numerical approximation technique (and thus of not much interest to physics)."

In my opinion, the Golden Ratio is the theory and E-Infinity is a model that was chosen for convenience first, and accuracy second.

Have Fun!

Ray

T H Ray wrote on Mar. 20, 2010 @ 09:34 GMT
E-Infinity:

I think you are still not getting it. It is critically important that a valid physical theory _predict_ physical consequences, and not merely state that if the world is such and such a way, then such and such consequences follow.

To use an exaggerated example: If the sunrise results from Apollo driving his fiery chariot across the heavens, what other properties of the chariot's existence and motion can be predicted to follow that would suggest that Apollo and his vehicle are physically real, and thus cause physical effects independent of their being affected by any other physical condition?

So it is with fractal objects and dimensions--what would convince one that these are physically real, with causative properties? The concept of a fractal, after all, is secondary to scaling which is secondary to distance which is secondary to geometric relations among dimensionless points. Do you understand? -- you've given one no reason to accept fractal dimensions as primary objects of physical study, rather than as a consequence of mathematical analysis (which in fact, we know them to be). One cannot simply, by fiat, endow an object with physical attributes, whether we are speaking of fractals or Apollo's chariot, and have a valid physical theory.

Let us contrast your program with Einstein's general relativity, in which spacetime is shown to be physically real. Can you build from scratch (i.e., make mathematically complete)a theory and research program which makes physical predictions from the independent physical reality of fractals? I personally doubt it, but stranger things have happened.

Tom

Anonymous wrote on Mar. 20, 2010 @ 19:10 GMT
When talking to friends one has to assume a minimum of good faith. The word obnoxious is completely out and no one has cut and pasted his own writings. We cannot compete nor is it recommendable to compete with certain elements who consider themselves scientists because they have a laptop and a blog posting facility. We will not substitute logic for repetition and right or wrong for who has the last word. E-infinity group gave a derivation for 137… from physical principles based on a general theory. To say after that that the value was postulated shows that the person concerned did not really read what was written. There is no need to emphasize that anyone knew about the golden mean before they knew about El Naschie. There is hardly any number which is as well known as the golden mean in the history of art and science. To start talking about comparison between theoretical value and the particle data group measurement is a complete misunderstanding of both theory and measurement. The last thing I want to enter into is discussion on a blog when there is only assertions on both sides and very little room for even tempered logic so I am not even going to attempt to discuss this point any further.

Anonymous wrote on Mar. 20, 2010 @ 19:33 GMT
With all due respect the remarks which came in response to E-infinity 10 are not correct because

1. At no point what so ever in the history of E-infinity was it chosen for convenience. It is a total misunderstanding of everything including simplicticity. I mean simplicticity, not simplicity. By the same token one could misunderstand the entire theory behind Penrose tiling. The golden mean is not there for convenience. If Roger Penrose did not take the golden mean, there would be no tiling. I would either be gaps or overlapping. To say Penrose chose the golden mean for convenience is a meaningless sentence. Of course it is convenient for Penrose to be able to tile the plane correctly because this is his objective.

2. When the inverse electromagnetic constant increases in magnitude then of course the coupling becomes weaker. Conversely if the electromagnetic constant becomes larger then of course it becomes stronger. I thought this trivial contradiction in notation and terminology is not the sort which would make experts trip. Of course the electromagnetic fine structure constant is not a constant. We have habitually wrongly called it a constant although we know it is not one. Some people like to think in terms of the inverse because it is easier to remember. That is all but I cannot see how anyone could really misunderstand what is meant unless the objective is to misunderstand.

3. It is exactly the other way round. E-infinity is suspected by the traditional physicists because it is too accurate. You cannot escape from the dependence on energy in quantum mechanics because it is a theory where the observer is included. Some call it participatory universe. There is no escape from this energy dependence like there is no escape from perspective. Some think the standard model is fairly independent of this perspective but this is a delusion or convenience or inaccuracy. A trivial example was given in one of the comments…. Why should we measure alpha bar to be 128 when we know it is 137? The answer is of course trivial. Because the 128 belongs to the electroweak. And then it depends on what you are measuring with. It depends how exactly you conduct your experiment. That is why you do not measure 128. You measure many things from about 127.5 to 128.5 or even 129 and all are called electroweak. You have a range. This is real life. But real theory is different and you do not understand real life without real theory. The value of E-infinity which gives the theory an automatic Okum Razzer or Kalman filter is the one given by 137 plus k 0. The k 0 is 0.082039325. Several authors, some before Mohamed El Naschie, showed that you get the experimental value by projection from this theoretical value. The formula is given in A review of E-infinity. You subtract k 0 and obtain 137. You divide this value by co-sign of pi divided by alpha bar. The result is 137.03598 in fair agreement with many of the experimental verification of this value at ordinary laboratory conditions specified in the relevant literature. See for instance The VAK of vacuum fluctuation, spontaneous self-organization and complexity theory interpretation of high energy particle physics and the mass spectrum. Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, Vol. 18, 2003, p. 401.

I think these are all well known things and are not specific at all to E-infinity theory. I hope I am wrong but I sense that this discussion is intentionally being derailed to suit the agenda of certain people. I hope I am wrong but I cannot resist this suspicion at this particular point of time. I can assure those interested that we will not participate in any derailed discussions.

E-infinity 11 wrote on Mar. 20, 2010 @ 20:29 GMT
E-infinity communication 11

Further elucidation and towards the general theory of transfinite dimension

We have a lot of work to do and we hope we can do it today but I doubt that we can seriously start explaining Menger Urysohn theory of transfinite dimension in this communication. Judging by past experience negative dimensions cause physicists a great deal of difficulty but let us start without much ado.

The father of the inductive theory is an extraordinary Jewish Russian scientist, Paul Urysohn. This wonderful man died tragically while swimming in the Biscay at a very tender age. Hilbert knew the value of the young man from Russia. In a famous anecdote David Hilbert asked his assistant Richard Courrant what happened to the paper of Urysohn which was supposed to be published in Hilbert’s journal. Courrant said he sent it for peer review. Hilbert immediately snapped, I told you to publish the paper. I did not say you should send it for dam refereeing. We clearly live in different times where the thin veil of so called peer review is used and misused on a daily basis in high places. I do not think I want to go into that but I just wanted to tell you this because David Hilbert knew there is nobody except him who could appreciate and understand the work of this young Russian mathematical genius. Now I cannot give you the mathematical derivation of Urysohn’s work, not even in the improved and simplified version by the great Jewish Austrian mathematician Karl Menger who was forced like so many other great people to emigrate to the United States because of the ignorant unscientific Nazis who took over Germany and then marched into Austria before putting the entire of Europe on fire. What I will do here is an extremely, extremely simplistic way to come to the nitty gritty which theoretical physicists like ourselves can use to tame quantum mechanics.

Let us start with 3 dimensions, say a cube. What is the dimension of the boundary of a cube? Clearly this is an area which is two dimensional. That means it is 3 minus 1 equals 2. Apply the same thing to a 2 dimensional square. The border is a line which is one dimension so it is 2 minus 1 equals 1. Take a line. How can we separate the line or what is the border of the line? The border is a point which has a dimension equal to the line minus 1 equals zero. True mathematical genius or any kind of abnormally inclined human being never stop where almost everybody else stops and they ask questions which are unexpected although very simple and natural. Suppose we want to separate the point into two parts. What would the border of a point be? Formally and naively we just continue our implicit formula which we used so far, namely the border of n dimensional object is always n minus one. Applying this to the point we have 0 minus 1 equals minus 1. Mathematicians call the point with zero dimension the zero set and what we just calculated and found to be minus 1 is called the empty set. That is where everything in mathematics and set theory starts. I hasten to say that in physics the zero set is misunderstood on many occasions and as for the empty set, it is more than misunderstood at the majority of physical occasions. In his theory El Naschie did not even stop at this point. He continued asking the question, namely what is the border of an empty set? Formally this is minus 1 minus 1 equals to minus 2. This is a set which is even emptier than the empty set. Using certain relations between topological and Hausdorff dimensions, El Naschie continued this game to minus infinity or total nothingness. He was able to show that the Hausdorff dimension corresponding to this nothingness which is minus infinity is a simple 0. In addition it is a trivial result of his bijection formula that the zero set has a Hausdorff dimension equal to the golden mean while the empty set has a Hausdorff dimension equal to the square of the golden mean. The same result automatically follows from Connes’ theory of noncommutative geometry applied to the Penrose universe as explained in the book of Connes which we mentioned in an earlier communication. We will stop here and promise to give the details in the next communication. Best wishes,

Ray Munroe wrote on Mar. 20, 2010 @ 20:29 GMT
Dear Anonymous and E-Infinity,

I apologize. I was being rude and flippant. It annoys me that I don't know exactly who I'm talking to. But yes, you could be a friend and I should treat you as such.

My point is that the *MAXIMUM* measured value of alpha-bar is

137.035 999 679 (94) where digits in parenthesis represent the error in those last two digits. The running coupling causes alpha-bar to get smaller (not larger like 137.082) at higher renormalization energies.

To my knowledge, no high-accuracy measurement of alpha-bar has ever given a value as large as 137.082039325.

OK, so we start with *EXACTLY 10* and scale up twice to get 26.18, and square it to get 685.3. I guess we could argue that Electromagnetism is a 2nd order differential equation and that scaling up twice takes this property into account. And of course, we square the electric charge to get alpha.

Perhaps the discrepancy between 137.036 versus 137.082 is due to normalizing on *EXACTLY 10*, when a slightly smaller number would have yielded exactly 137.036.

Or perhaps the discrepancy is due to SUSY and/or GUT effects. For instance, SUSY introduces Charginos, Neutralinos, squarks and sleptons; and the Georgi-Glashow SU(5) GUT introduces X and Y particles that carry electric charge and would certainly modify high-energy runnung couplings. I don't think these effects should modify the low-energy alpha-bar, but you may be ignoring a higher order effect that requires more scaling (SU(5) has rank-4 versus Electro-Weak's rank-2 SU(2) x U(1)) and thus modifies your E-Infinity alpha-bar.

My ideas are diverging from E-Infinity.

Have Fun!

Ray

Jason wrote on Mar. 20, 2010 @ 20:59 GMT
All this talk of obnoxiousness and repetition is distressing and inappropriate between scientists and friends. Please, I implore you all. Can we tone it down a bit. Polite, respectful exchanges. Not character assassination. Only in this way can we evaluate arguments on the basis of scientific merit.

T H Ray wrote on Mar. 20, 2010 @ 21:57 GMT
E-Infinity:

Derailed discussions? What do you find "derailing" in what IMO are straightforward issues of science? Namely:

1. How does one differentiate mathematical artifact from physical conclusion in your theory? (I gave the example, E = M. What is the comparable conclusion of E-Infinity theory?)

2. What is physically real in your theory and how does one know it? (I gave the example of physically real spacetime. What is a comparable physically real concept in your theory and what physical effects manifest from it?)

I have nothing at stake here. My name is my own, and my questions are honest. Why would one be motivated to study your theory, as physics, unless those questions were answered? If it's only the mathematics that you find compelling, why not just say so?--a coherent model can make predictions with changes in parameters, but if you make no predictions at all, what is accomplished?

Tom

محمد النشائي El Naschie Watch محمد النشائي El Naschie News محمد النشائي
محمد النشائي All El Naschie All The Time محمد النشائي

1. Hi Jason,
They removed all comments due to El naschine on
Newsceintist website.
Can fractals make sense of the quantum world.

2. Hi Jason,
Look at this article dated 2002 about the great man El naschie, unfortunately the article was written in arabic. El naschie was put on equal footing with Einstein. There is a woderfull picture there

http://www.almarefh.org/news.php?action=show&id=2044

3. Jason, it seems sock-puppets are in action again: look for Hilal's last posts (one of them is identical to a post already posted in June) on FQXi's forum.

shrink

4. Hi all ,

I am presenting me ,Steve Dufourny,Belgian,34 years old,The Theory of Spherisation ,a GUT of Quantum and Cosmological Spheres .My English is not very good but I evolve .I invite you on FQXi to see my articles and discussions about some ideas .I saw all these threads ,very interstings ,really.
Let's discuss in total transparence because the complemenatrity is fundamental everywhere.

Best regards

Steve

5. Maybe you should add the idea of correct punctuation to your sphere before dismounting and reassembling the cosmos on a quantum level. I know, there are small differences between English, Dutch, French and German, but your interpretation is rather intrsrngnt ,really.

shrink

7. Dear Martin ,

Eureka lol with humility of course.
Could you develop a little ,please ?
Pragmatism ,rationality ,logic ,basic .....and respect .

Sincerely

Steve

8. Hi all ,

You are right indeed ,this name is better and more simple in fact .
The Theory of Spherisation,a GUT of Spheres .

What do you think ?

sincerely

Steve

9. HIHIHI ,

I have still changed the name ,
This one is the best I think ,
The Theory of Spherisation ,a UTE of Rotating Spheres .

Regards

Steve

10. You are on crack.

11. Dear Anonymous ,

My Theory of Spherisation is fundamental ,the rotations of quantum spheres ,entangled explains all and imply the mass proportionally .
The Quantum number is the same that our cosmological number of spheres .
The evolution point of vue and the general relativity are linked too .Thus an increase of mass is a reality .
Our Universe is a sphere in building ,in improvement ,in optimization towards a perfect equilibrium between spheres ,the mass.
And our quantum particles too are spheres ,coded in Time and Space evolution.
If you have any question about my theory ,don't hesitate I will answer you with pleasure .
I will give you details about my works;researchs,classments.... ,math ,phys ,chem,biol,ecology,astronomy,philosophy.

Sincerely

Steve

12. Yes, let us Talk about yours Theory .For imply and mass .When perfect vue I agree Should Spherization be ,chem,biol,erect,bond,phil .The coded majesty in Time has evoluted for the perfect equilibrium .Now I CAN see when found with works for details . More! Has me found the Universe of the substanc . we consume together and Feel the Cosmological number you explain please more .

13. Hi dear anoymous ,

Thanks to ask me that .
Simply,the rotations of quantum spheres imply the mass.The complexity returns to the simplicity .
These velocities are directly proportionals like an universal mv... constant between quantum and cosmological spheres .
All is coded and has a rule of complementarity .
The rotating spheres ,this moment ,this link with mass and gravity implying spherical gravitational waves too are specifics in their volumes and entanglement like a code of our becoming ,our future pefect sphere and its spheres .The senses ,the directions ,the velocities around themselves and orbitals ,the angles ,the volumes ,.....all is linked in this evident logic in my opinion .
Let's take our big revolutions ,the rotations ,the wheel ,the pully ,the rotors ,gears....Let's take our fruits ,flowers ,our seeds ,glands ,brains,eyes,....stars ,planets ,moons,.......some oil in the water .....our waves....It's difficult to resume but here is a little very very very short evolution point of vue

BIG BANG THEORY ??? since about 13.7 billions years multiplication of spheres………….….space time energy mathematic code……………..polarization +-…3.5billlions years……hydrospheroid……………………………………………………………………………… SPHERISATION ………..…H……Helium Deuterium Hydrogen and others …..C………N………O……++++++++CODED ENERGY ….….H2O …. NH3… CH4 H2C2…. HCN……. K… Fe Mg Mn Al …… S …PYROXENS AMPHIBOLS ...SiO SILICATES………proteins/enzyms.... INE ASE……+-..AMINO-ACID……BUILDINGS .ADN ……SPHERISATION……….
…………….………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………………………………………GLUCID LIPIP PROTID PROTIST UNICELL PROTOZ phytoflagellates zooflagellates …..animal vegetal SPHERISATION dedifferenciation…..PLURICELL EVOLUTION HARMONY…………………………… SPHERISATION ……………………………………………………… ….LOCOMOTION NUTRITION REPRODUCTION……………………………ANNELIDS ………. SPONGES ……….. .. MEDUSAS…………….. CHORDS ……….. VERTEB………SPHERISATION…….HOMINIDS ……….LUCY TOUMAI………erectus…...habilis ……………HOMO SAPIENS SAPIENS NOT REALLY SAPIENS…IN FACT… ……SPHERISATION HOMO REALLY SAPIENS FOR ……………. • LOGIC…PHILOSOPHIC… SPHERISATION …….RESOLVE PROBLEMS AND LEARN ………………UNIVERSAL SPHERE

Sincerely

Steve

14. No, I disagree, that's not necessarily crack. It can just be prenatal hypoxia combined with repeated THC abuse as a self-medication.

15. hahahah it's better than anxiolytic ,benzodiazepin and neuroleptic ....the tetra hydro canabiniol is not good for health ...let's be serious .I like reggae and rock but 34 years old ,it's finish the silly things hahahaha

In all case ,a little humor is well ,it's likeable in fact .

Friendly

until soon dear anonymous ,let's go your name but who is he ?

16. According to a recent amusing post on FQXi El Naschie will sue everyone and everything. :D

shrink

17. OK, I have just updated this archive with the latest FQXi comments. Shrink is referring to NJ's post of November 15.

18. Did you notice that NJ's post hasn't appeared at scientificblogging.com while the other two have? :D

shrink

19. "We are talking about Nature, something respectable. Monkeys like Said, John Baez, Quirin Schiermeier or Christoph Drosser do not count."

Aha, and someone who "do not count" wrote the article for "something respectable". See the contradiction, Anon? :D

shrink

20. Updated November 30, 2009.

21. Hi ,

The confusion appears when the imaginaries take the main part of the line of reasoning .Like a false referential with bizares dimen,sions ,only 3 D and a tilme constant .The physicality possesses its real numbers ,and specifics .There a referential without the correct number is false ,simply .Can we derivate like we want ,and play with the serie with an extrapolated imaginary system where the zero sings with the infinity and the ,of course the resulst are mathematical and not physical .Thus of course only the finite serie of prime number can be correlated in the universal fractal .The volume and the thermodynamical link of course is considered ttoo .There without a finite referential ,all is false ,the complexification of primes is evoutive in its polarisations with naturals .But the balance between the left and right brain ,these spheroids evolved ,the difference ith Copenaghen Iterpretation and EPR...all is a question of reasonability in fact with our pures numbers ,the numbers of quantic spheres and cosmological spheres is the same .This serie is specific and finite in a evolutive universal sphere.Only the primes probably are phtysicals .The actual problem of the sciences community is the individualism and the quest of TOES ,that has no sense in fact ,the foundamentals are the foundamentals and the imaginaries are the imaginaries ,only the real number of spheres and their rotations are the rational base .

The rotating spheres are the key .All good extrapolations,equations ,...can be superimposed with pragmatism only and only if the reals numbers and the imaginaries are in the foundamentals ,if not that pass the limits of the system and the laws disappear ,it is the reason why so many confusions exist actualy in physics ,the referentials are falses thus the conclusions are falses too .A fruit is a fruit ,an eye is an eye,a gland is gland ,a star is a star ,a planet is a planet ,a spherical wave is a sp w ,a brain is a brain ,a egg is an egg ,an apple is an apple ,a wheel is a wheel ,a quark is a quark ,a boson is a boson ,an electron is an electron ,a photon is a photo ,a spheron is a spheron ,I like the Plnack scale ,the main central code of the rotating system implying mass and gravity ,the mass increases what a beautiful news.A BH is a BH ,these spherical mass have a rule ,the gravity is relative too ,........all goes towards the sphere .And the rotations .....In this line of reasoning the spheron turn at the max implying the weakest mass ,the universal sphere doesn't turn ...the gauge ,the link with the rotating spheres .The ùmass is linked with these rotating quantum and cosmological spheres .It was only simple like that .Like said Wheeler ,one day ,we shall see the beauty of the truth ....and we shall say us ,Oh My God .....It was only simple like that ,the complexity returns to the simplicity .

Regards

Steve

22. Hello Steve, thank you for your thoughtful contribution.

Everyone, please welcome Steve, our first El Naschie supporter.

Jason

23. I amp not a supporter ,but I think what Mr El Nashie is a very good scientist .My model is different .
I just want to be in contact with him because I work on the creation of an International Humanistic sciences center focus on priorities for our fellow man ,Thus the skills are important and the skills of Mr El Nashie seems very interestings .

I try to unite scientists ,thus if you have this Heart dear Jason and good ideas to improve the quality of life ,thus you are welcome of course .The universality is the key of the acceleration of our evolution and its harmonization .

A sciences community is like a balance too ,it exists the foundamentals ,the creators and the others who interpret with their laws .The physicality is not a play but a truth .....

If somebody have the mail of Mr El Nashie ,it will be nice ,Thanks in advance .The respect of the research is like a reason of the definition of the respect .

I have seen too seveal posts from a friend ,Dr Ray Munroe,his ideas with MrLawrence B Crowell ,El Nashie,Lisi ...have several similarities in the extrapolations .It is very respectable when you read their equations and methods .

You know my model is totally different but I like their ideas .They are very competents .
Regards

Steve

24. Steve, I urge you to contact Dr. El Naschie. Tell him we sent you.

25. I never saw it that way. No matter how you put it, it always wraps around in the wrong way. But on a sphere.. it makes perfect sense suddenly. How can something so simple be something so brilliant and still it escapes my understanding. There are indeed many similarities. It may take some time until your ideas can work together, but in the end, something nobel worthy and respectable may be the result. It would be a sin upon yourself if you didn't contact the Prof. El-Naschie and entrust your goodself to his brilliant mind and understanding.

26. Subtle! I suggest readers follow the link of "The damned don't cry" and notice the name of the co-star.

27. Hi

Is it possible to speak about physics here or is it just a place to discuss about the interpretations from non scientists people ?

Regards

Steve

28. Hi Steve, this blog is about El Naschie. His theories, his life, his wealth, his lawsuits -- everything about The Great Man. The comments here are not strictly moderated, but they must have something to do with El Naschie. The connection can be rather weak but it must be explicit. Posts may be serious or humorous; supportive or condemnatory. But if El Naschie isn't discussed I will probably delete them.

29. Updated December 12 with the comment from "Notsoanonymous"

30. Ha, the latest comment tells us that Richard Poynder stopped posting about the Great Man because... Ah, yes, because:

http://elnaschiewatch.blogspot.com/2009/11/el-naschie-to-sue-known-universe.html

:D

shrink

31. Thanks, Shrink. As you see, I've updated the archive. I will do a post featuring Ayman Abdulrahman's magnificent comment as well.

32. Anon, in his post from Jan.2, 2010, claims that El Naschie's scientific work can't be judged by a second class geographer, by hired hit men (experts or non-experts) and friends of the right hand of a Nobel laureate who plagiarized his work etc. An anonymous commenter:

http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=192&cpage=1#comment-3308

who raised the issue some years ago could not possibly judge his work either.

What about Lubos Motl, a string theorist, who (as far as I know) didn’t join the debate about El Naschie last year when the scandal erupted? He would be a good choice, would he?

http://motls.blogspot.com/2007/11/arthur-eddington-died-63-years-ago.html

"Meanwhile, if you want to be really entertained, Eddington's science was revived by a scientist in Saudi Arabia. M.S. El Naschie wrote "On D. Gross’ criticism of S. Eddington and an exact calculation of alpha=1/137" in 2007. It is so much fun that I copy the full abstract here:
While Sir Arthur Stanley Eddington attempts to derive alpha=1/137 mathematically may be considered to be a stretch, as correctly noted by Nobel laureate David Gross, in the meantime such a theoretical derivation is possible and feasible. In the present work, we show that the inverse electromagnetic fine structure constant may be derived in various ways using a combination of the Green, Shwarz, Witten and Gross string theory and the ‘t Hooft-Susskind and Maldacena holographic principles.

Besides the 136 science, you must also learn about "Shwarz" [sic], "Gross string theory", whatever it exactly is, and double the number of holographic principles. But once you do it, you may derive Eddington's numerology from string theory. Some people are simply loons and Elsevier Ltd happily prints them in peer-reviewed journals."

shrink

33. I know. There's only one qualification that matters for judging Him. You have to think highly of Him. Len Malinowski, Je-Huan He, Dan Winter.

34. This is the official Symmetric Engineering Group blog page where we will blog to discuss IT issues and Stories.
We are a Managed IT company based in Tampa Florida.
http://blog.symmetricgroup.com

Managed IT services & Computer & Network Management in Tampa Bay.
http://www.symmetricgroup.com