Want to attract El Naschie fans? Write an article called Spacetime May Have Fractal Properties on a Quantum Scale with an unmoderated comments section. That's like free shots on skid row.

To read the article at physorg.com, click here.

Comments from Naschie Party members and other amusing eccentrics are in green:

googleplex - Mar 25, 2009

Clearly the universe is scale dependent. I have often wondered how this could be understood in mathematical terms.

I am also convinced that there are extra dimensions. One of these extra dimensions explain the curvature of space time.

earls - Mar 25, 2009

Variable measurable dimensions on a sliding scale. Hrm... googleplexing.

The question is then, which at "scale" is the "baseline" that which all the dimensions can be measured at once? If one exists at all...

Perhaps such would be relegated to a "virtual" scale independent equation.

Identifying all of the variables on the different scales seems like quite a insurmountable task. How would we know if we even quantified them all... I suppose "when the equation breaks for the known set of data."

Definitely one of the more interesting and thought provoking articles on Physorg (physics) as of late.

Modernmystic - Mar 25, 2009

I think they're really on to something. When we get quantum gravity it will be something like this I think. Something that kind of makes you say "Well yeah that makes perfect sense, but I never would have thought of it".

yyz - Mar 25, 2009

This study touches on two important questions in physics today 1) What is the nature and structure of spacetime 'foam' at Planck scale? and 2)How can singularities be dealt with in quantum mechanics (QM)? Will this research lead to the long-sought quantum description of gravity?

Nevertheless - Mar 25, 2009

My principal interest in all of this is pragmatic. Neuroscientists will have an easier transition to the idea that consciousness is external to the brain if there is a theory that helps explain how this is possible, see, e.g.,

http://www.quantu...nts.html

As the Singulaity approaches we will be very interested in whether machines can have conscious minds. A theory concerning how this can happen should help things along.

Alizee - Mar 26, 2009

it%u2019s impossible to visualize these extra dimensions

The number three means, space-time is composed of flat 2D membranes at low scales, like boiling fluid or nested foam. Hidden dimensions can be visualised quite easily by the same way. Hidden dimensions aren't hidden at all - they're all around us - every dispersion of light or violation of inverse square law is manifestation of hidden dimensions. For example Casimir force of weak nuclear force depends on fifth power of distance. If hidden dimensions wouldn't exist, Universe would be transparent.

magpies - Mar 26, 2009

Yeah and perhaps if you go to a short enoth scale you will find elfs and hobogoblins!

Get real...

Suzu - Mar 26, 2009

Yeah and perhaps if you go to a short enoth scale you will find elfs and hobogoblins!

Get real...

Elves you numbnut. You are also welcome to bring us something that proves you enlightened point of view.

magpies - Mar 26, 2009

Look the reason you get something that looks fairytailish when you look at a smaller and smaller scale... Is simple. Everything works the way it works... When you try to define the way something works your perspective itself shapes how you see it work. As a race of beings we cant understand something we are not ready to understand. Yet we will be trying to understand everything as beings. If you could remove yourself from your own perspective you could understand something elses own perspective possibly but untill then no. This is part of what makes us human and also part of what that makes our science wrong.

phystic - Mar 26, 2009

Alizee, might you be meaning and "entropy-like" stuff when you mention "random stuff"?

mattytheory - Mar 26, 2009

I hate to say it but both magpies and alizee have a point. At least to me they do... but I am drunk. So, what do I know? I'll probably read this tomorrow and wish I could delete my comment. I hope not...

Alexa - Mar 26, 2009

..you be meaning and "entropy-like" stuff ..

Of course, and ideal gas is the simplest representation of every entropic system. We shouldn't replace natural phenomena by abstract concepts, because lost of general insight, connections and information. If we are saying, "quantum mechanics is of entropic character", we can deduce another atributes of quantum mechanic systems, because these systems share many common aspects of their behavior, not just probability or entropy distribution. Density fluctuations of gas have shape of strings and membranes and many other atributes, which can be predicted/computed by this model.

Alexa - Mar 26, 2009

..problem with a two-dimensional theory is that it is unphysical, as we see four dimensions at our scales...

This is the reason, AWT doesn't assume some particular number of dimensions, it considers virtually infinite number of dimensions and lets the probability and geometric constrains to limits the number of dimensions.

For example, the density fluctuations inside of gas aren't always flat. If the gas is sparse, they have rather spherical character. After then we can model fluctuations as a system of kissing hypersheres, where just the 3D hypersheres allows the most compact distribution. This determines the number of spatial dimensions of our space-time. It appears as so large, because it's the most compact one possible.

Inside of more dense gas, though, a less compact density fluctuations appears: membranes and strings. The lower number of space-dimensions is compensates by increasing number of time dimensions and the system becomes chaotic from our 3D perspective. Therefore our view of reality doesn't differ from perspective, which "would see" some 3D fluctuation of gas, when interacting with other fluctuations (strings, branes or hyperspheres).

Alexa - Mar 26, 2009

In general, we should decide question, if we want to adhere to "4D-only" space-time and "four fundamental forces" model to handle all violations of inverse square law like "natural nonlinearities", "gravity lensing" or "dispersion phenomena" - while still looking for "hidden dimensions" and "Lorentz symmetry violations". Because every nonlinearity from ISL IS a manifestation of hidden dimensions, in fact.

Or whether we would interpret things like dispersion, refraction and nonlinear energy spreading like manifestation of supergravity, hidden dimensions and Lorentz symmetry violation phenomena.

This is radical new approach to reality, but I'm convinced, we cannot consider both variants at the same moment from consistency reasons. For example, we shouldn't expect/look for hidden dimensions and Lorentz invariance at the same moment.

http://aetherwave...ory.html

From practical reasons it's always possible to handle exceptions separatelly, but when spending money for basic research in physics, we should make clear for yourself, which model we want to consider for future. The laymans can retain their plural/fragmented view of reality, but theorists should be perfectly aware of what they're looking for.

dev2000 - Mar 26, 2009

"In simple words..."

Too funny.

benhanson - Mar 27, 2009

Have we disproved gravity's action at a distance? Doesn't gravity's "faster than light" interaction imply that it is a property of space as a medium rather than an object within that medium? By medium, I'm simply talking about the laws of nature/physics, the framework. It always seems to me that the interesting question that no one seems to have the answer to, is how does matter interact with and thus alter the medium? How can mass warp space? The idea of a fractal dimension is interesting in that it could explain the variability of the medium given the influence of matter, if someone could explain how energy influences a variable in the fractal equation.

earls - Mar 27, 2009

It's been claimed that a successful experiment has measured the speed of gravity at the speed of light. There is no "faster than light" interaction.

Regarding how mass can warp space(time)...

Imagine a rubber sheet stretched over a frame - like a drum. If you compact an area of the sheet, it becomes denser - that's your mass. The area of the sheet surrounding the mass is your "warping" of spacetime - gravity.

When this analogy is usually delivered, it is said "the mass is sitting on top of the rubber sheet..."

This is a mistake... Mass and spacetime are not separate entities, they are one in the same, but simply density fluctuations of the "medium."

If you imagine this concept in three dimensions, you'll have a much more accurate picture of reality.

Alizee - Mar 29, 2009

I'm missing a references to El Naschie, who has laid the foundations of Fractal Spacetime concept, instead of refering Ambjorn, Jurkiewicz, and Loll.

Here's a controversy associated with El Naschie's publishing in journal Chaos, Solitons and Fractals, though.

http://slashdot.o.../1831225

Alizee - Mar 29, 2009

In my private opinion, while many ideas of prof. Naschie are self-referencing and anticipating their own results, he is on good track. The main problem is, no general theory should consider relativity and quantum mechanics, i.e. theories, which we don't understand deeply. Everything, what we can be completelly sure is 4D geometry of space-time.

At the moment, we use combination of ad-hoced theories of uncertain consistency scope, we can be never sure by relevance of output to observable reality. The fuzinness of such approach isn't in its formal rigor, but the postulate consistency. We simply don't know, if postulates of relativity and quantum mechanics plays together, which ones are inconsistent or redundant, and so on.

If we don't understand the nature of fundamental elements, which is wrong - we should build a general theory from our local experience, which is perfectly known and understood - despite the fact, the assumptions, which are more distant from our everyday reality can provide a "more numbers" temporarily.

..the idea of a fractal dimension is interesting...

We should realize, no ad-hoced idea can serve as an explanation, until we have understood its causual base. In AWT the fractality of Universe is consequence of its multicomponent nature of gradient driven reality, i.e. the fact, every object here is a gradient, formed by density fluctuations of many other objects. These gradients - no matter, how strangely they may appear from proximity - can be extrapolated like countable, i.e. colliding pin-point particles, when observed from sufficient distance and their fields can be interpreted like mutually penetrating hyperspheres of various diameter.

http://superstrun...comb.gif

By this way, observable reality appears/can be modeled like density fluctuations of very dense gas (interior of black hole) from less or more distant, i.e. general perspective - i.e. it's a completelly a probability game. The density fluctuations in particle gas are always of fractal nature, becuase they can behave like another generation of fluctuations and so on. From more general perspective they would appear like clouds or Perlin noise, evoking a heaven archetype.

I'm not saying, this approach is the only way, how to interpret fractal nature of reality - but currently I don't see any better solution. At the moment, someone will introduce a more general and simpler way, I'll forget AWT concept immediately.

yyz - Mar 29, 2009

Check out this post at the BAUT forum and draw your own conclusions about El Naschie: http://www.bautfo...579.html .

Alizee - Mar 29, 2009

My opinion is, the speed of information spreading scientific community has reached it's own criticality point. Because math experts are rather weak in fuzzy connections of reality and vice-versa, nobody can see the connections points of his own and foreign ideas. By this way, a whole progress in human understanding fragmentizes itself in number of seemingly contradicting ideas and everybody is scrambled.

Prof. El Nashie's theory may appear like numerology for many physicists, but deeper insight reveals many connection points of his theories with another ones, like Lisi Garret E8 theory, string theory and so on.

For example, in his later work he presents a model of fractal or fuzzy self-similar Borromean rings under bold claim "This knot is related to the wild topology relevant to E-infinity theory with a random Cantor set as the limit set of the fractal-like knots." http://tinyurl.com/d7sj65

A rigorous proof is missing here, simply because E-infinity theory has no defined postulate set, being based on geometrical coincidencies. But the same problem exists with string theory or even LQG theory. You can never find a postulate list of these theories on the web, so you can never decide, whether some particular insight may be derived from this theory, or not.

But knowledgable reader can see a reference to gradient driven reality and brane cosmology immediatelly. By ekpyrotic cosmology our Universe emerged as a result of brane collision. Aether theory connects this insight into so called shock wave cosmology and the dynamics of collapsar formation.

http://superstrun...apse.gif

http://aetherwave...ogy.html

By AWT observable Universe appears like being formed by interior of black hole, formed by mutual collisions of real density gradients during collapse of dense star in form of fast expanding spherical shock waves. The remnants of this geometry can be seen in structure of dark matter streaks.

As we can see, while ad-hoced, Ek Nashie's geometry isn't completelly off topic here and it has a deeper meaning here. The structure of intersection points has a close relation to Lie E8 group, as presented in Lisi Garrets theory. Both these guys are talking about the same geometry, like brane cosmologists - they just don't know about it. They're all very productive people and simply have no time to check & reconcile ideas of others. This is an advantage of various "cranks", like me, who simply have a time to do this job.

Such situation is nothing very new in science. If we analyze history of most of important scientific theories, we will see a very deep roots and the fact, first formulations of these theories were rather formal and ad-hoced. The complete understanding of these ideas has come cradually.

By AWT such evolution is not accidental at all, because phase transition in human understanding are Lagrangian particle physics driven by the same way, like phase transitions of matter - theories are serving for intensification of causual energy spreading through human society by the same way, like formation of density gradients inside of dense particle gas. So we can consider physical theories like interesction/collision points of many other, less or vague ideas, which are becoming a source of another ideas, recursivelly.

Unfortunatelly, even whole pile of math won't help us in such understanding - we're required to have illustrative insight into situation first. But at the moment, we understood the simmilar points of many ideas, the further generalization of them becomes a way easier then before.

Alizee - Mar 29, 2009

..out this post at the BAUT forum..

We should always distinguish a factual contribution of people from their personal behavior and motivations. I don't like prof. El Nashie's approach to presentation his own ideas in mainstream press, he is simply "cheating". But I can still consider his ideas as quite relevant, despite the mainstream consensus may be different in this moment. I know, Einstein has adopted many foreign ideas without notion, i know, prof. Heim was convinced nacist. But theirs theories were an ingenious products of human mind and it has no meaning to ignore them just for these controversies.

If we go deeper into history of mankind, we will often see a lot of controversy behind achievments of various individuals. In certain sense, whole the existence of observable matter is a sort of cheating. If every tiny black hole may lead to evaporation of Earth, it's apparent, our reality is metastable - we aren't supposed to be here, we should evaporate a long time before. We can talk about it, we can judge it - or we can simply incorporate this fact into our theories of reality.

Alexa - Mar 30, 2009

..Spacetime May Have Fractal Properties on a Quantum Scale..

Strictly speaking, from lower dimensionality of space-time at shorter scale doesn't follow, space-time has a fractal nature at all. The same observation can be made at water surface, where for shorter wavelengths we can observe a distortion of waves due the Brownian motion of water molecules.

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

remoran - Mar 30, 2009

I am not a math person at all so if I show profound ignorance of same, bear with me. Question, wouldn't space have inherent granularity to allow for the interaction of universes within the multiverse, thus giving rise to the bizarre effects of the quantum as seen, for example, by the elegant Thomas Young experiment showing the duality of light?

To me, the quantum foam (as interface) operating at Planck scale enables the many worlds of Hugh Everett to emerge and perhaps, this fractal theory could, in conjunction with quantum gravity, could explain how this amazing process happens.

Just a thought.

Modernmystic - Mar 30, 2009

Question, wouldn't space have inherent granularity to allow for the interaction of universes within the multiverse,

Well if we find it does then we've learned something profoud about the multiverse. If we can interact with them, then they must at some level be operating on the same laws and princiles ours does...or at least some of them do...

Alizee - Mar 30, 2009

...we've learned something profoud about the multiverse...

Even at water surface very tiny 2D surface waves spreads like longitudinal 1D waves and nothing very strange is about it. It's not evidence for fractal or multiple Universe, just for the fact, space-time is composed of particle environment. Aparently, this fact is less edible for many people, then some mysterious ideas about fractal space-time and multiverse, which they don't understand fully, because people are basically religious people and scientists plays a role of modern priests.

Alizee - Mar 30, 2009

From some unknown reason modern people simply cannot understand/realize, they cannot observe environment for light wave spreading just by light wave, by the same way, like we cannot observe water surface by water waves. This logics is causual base of whole Aether concept missunderstanding for last one hundred years, i.e. the manifestation of fatal unability of so called modern people to think consistently and logically.

Instead of this, such people prefer mysticism and abstract superstitions injected into their heads by modern priests, who are serving like drain for their taxes by the same way like people of medieval era. Youre all naive religious tribesmen, face it.

Modernmystic - Mar 30, 2009

Shouldn't that have read:

"By AWT Youre all naive religious tribesmen, face it."?

Or did you just forget the cool aid/brainwashing for a second?

Alizee - Mar 30, 2009

Indeed, religion is emergent phenomena, being cumulative. The rational basis of Aether refutal is apparent: surface waves move with water, whereas environment for light waves doesn't move - it means, this environment doesn't exist. It's simple and apparently clean logic, despite the fact, observational perspective is completely different in both cases. It requires just a bit of belief to "understand" such logic by the same way, like motion of crowd requires only tiny step of every person in it.

Every person believes in something and it makes no problem, until these individual beliefs are different - but at the moment, everyone believes in the same thing, such belief becomes intersubjective truth, which is impossible to falsify. At the end the power of all these tiny bits of subjective stance creates an immense force of crowd and every person, which defies it is crushed with no mercy.

Alizee - Mar 31, 2009

..brainwashing for a second..

This is question for discussion, who is making brainwashing here.

From article finding doesn't follows in logical way, space-time should have a fractal nature. While such idea appears quite acceptable for many people here, it's just Aether theory, which enables to deduce it logically, because density fluctuations inside of particle gas are always of fractal nature by their very nature.

By such way, you're accepting a theorem, which you don't understand, whereas you're refuting a concept, which enables you to derive this theorem in logical way. Such scrambled approach is explainable only by fact, you're brainwashed by simmilar articles, like this one.

spice_guru - Apr 02, 2009

A genuinely interesting article, but that headline will act as a beacon for every dope-smoking alt.physics troll on the internet!

Alexa - Apr 03, 2009

I don't understand, why you calling people a trolls, just because they're propose a more transparent explanations of the same things. You can be either religious layman and after than you should save your arrogance, which manifests only your personal frustrations.

Or you're one of mainstream scientists - and after then a generally better line of reasoning is expected. Natural competetion of ideas should be usefull even for science, don't you think? Nobody has a patent for definite knowledge - until you're not a Pope, indeed.

yyz - Apr 05, 2009

%u2018Many cosmologists find fault with their analysis, largely because a fractal matter distribution out to such huge scales undermines the standard model of cosmology. According to the accepted story of cosmic evolution, there simply hasn%u2019t been enough time since the big bang nearly 14 billion years ago for gravity to build up such large structures.%u2019 And: %u2018Modelling a fractal universe with general relativity is possible in theory, but in reality it would be devilishly complicated. That would leave cosmologists without a working model, like acrobats without a net.%u2019 And according to Neil Turok: %u2018The standard picture of a homogeneous universe on large scales is holding up very well when tested with very large-scale observations like those mapping the cosmic background radiation, X-rays and radio galaxies,%u2019 says physicist Neil Turok of Cambridge University in the UK.

%u2018If the observations of galaxies in optical surveys don%u2019t agree, there may be a number of possible explanations, without resorting to an extremely inhomogeneous, fractal universe,%u2019 he told New Scientist. These are direct quotes from the New Scientist link here http://www.newsci...page=1.I remain dubious of the claims presented in their paper & await further study of the subject.

yyz - Apr 05, 2009

The article in question at the New Scientist site is entitled 'Galaxy map hints at fractal universe' by Amanda Gefter June 25, 2008. Sorry for the broken link above.

Alexus - Apr 05, 2009

I am only interested in the scientific content of the work of Prof. Mohamed Elnaschie. His name, religion and nationality or sexual preferences are of no concern to me whatsoever. It is a matter of irrelevance as far as I am concerned where he publishes his work or how many papers he has written. As a scientist I am only concerned with the scientific content of what he is writing. I think the best theoretical base of his work was laid down in a four-page paper entitled: On Certain %u201CEmpty%u201D Cantor Sets and their Dimensions. A global view of his theory with an interesting connection to Godel Theorem maybe found in his 1993 paper titled: Statistical Mechanics of Multi-dimensional Cantor Sets, Godel Theorem and Quantum Spacetime. This paper was published in the Journal of the Franklin Institute, vol. 330, No. 1, pp.199-211. His other mathematical paper on the empty sets was published in Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, vol. 4, No. 2, pp 293-296, 1994. The basic idea of his work as far as I can see it is the existence of a VAK. This is a shorthand writing for the Vague Attractor of Kolmogorov. It was Rene Thom the renowned French topologist who conjectured in his acclaimed book: Structure, Stability and Morphogenesis that the VAK represents the stationary state of quantum mechanics. Elnaschie has extended the notion to mean the limit set of a dynamical fractal spacetime. His famous paper on this subject was the VAK of vacuum fluctuation, self-organization and the math spectrum in high energy physics. Following Menger and Urysohn, Elnaschie set the dimensions of the empty sets to be minus one. He then proved that a corresponding Hausdorff dimension will be Phi square where Phi stands for the Golden Mean which is roughly 0.618033989. From these simple well-established mathematical facts he was able to develop over a period of about twenty years a very comprehensive spacetime theory for high energy physics. The theory is called frequently E-Infinity Theory or Cantorian Fractal Spacetime Theory. The corresponding quantum field theory is sometimes referred to as Quantum Golden Field Theory. Elnaschie makes extensive use of all the concepts of nonlinear dynamics and the general mathematical theory of dimensions. He was able to prove that nothingness has a Hausdorff dimension equal to zero and a corresponding Menger-Urysohn dimension equal to minus infinity. His theory must have been shocking to traditional physicists who know almost nothing about the two pillars upon which his theory is based namely nonlinear dynamics and the mathematical theory of dimension developed by Poincare, Brouwer, Karl Menger and Paul Urysohn. However meantime there are many people who are using his theory. A very encouraging sign is a recent profound paper by a well-known British scientist, T.N. Palmer who is a fellow of the Royal Society. Palmers paper has been recently reviewed by Buchanan in the Newscientist. It will appear shortly in the Proceedings of the Royal Society. Palmers paper is an independent confirmation of all the fundamental results of Elnaschies theory and seems to have been developed largely independent of Elnaschies work. I hope I can answer in the future in some more detail any question which the reader of this site may pose.

Andie - Apr 06, 2009

My attention has been drawn to the comment by Alizee of March 29, 2009 a few moments ago. This is a direct response to his comment reflecting a fundamentally correct attitude. However in this particular case, and I know without a shred of a doubt that Prof. Mohamed Elnaschie is a victim other than the villain who some people for reasons better known to themselves are trying to portray. The history of Mohamed Elnaschie is well known. He was from the age of 30 a highly successful person in each conceivable endeavor and still is until today. The campaign against him started because of something completely different from what the superficial reader thinks. It is ridiculous to even suggest that someone would publish in his own journal so many papers without anyone noticing it. John Baez once he achieved the scandal he wanted, closed his site. Is not that an admission that he feared the long arm of the law. If you have such fear is not that an admission that you know you are wrong. Did not Nature take its allegations out of Nature online? Is that not an admission that these allegations must have been wrong? If there is a single person who never benefited financially from publishing papers in Physics, then this person must be Prof. Mohamed Elnaschie. John Baez is a close friend of Renate Loll and he is the one who drafted Schermeier of Nature and Christopher Drosser from Die Zeit. Baez, Loll and Dawker are all friends and closely connected with you know how. The whole issue is very distasteful I can assure you and no matter how long it takes, the truth will come out and someone will be telling you I told you so. But there is something more important to what Alizee is saying. To many people Werner Heisenberg is the greatest physicist of all time. For many others he is a Nazi collaborator who wanted to help Hitler get the bomb. The truth is that he is a German patriot who thought he was doing what he had to do for his country which was at war. His science and his Uncertainty relations have nothing to do with Nazism or Communism or any other isms. There is something fascistic about the internet. You sit there safe and sound behind a pseudo name and a pseudo address and a computer screen. Suddenly you appoint yourself judge and jury. In the Internet you are guilty until proven innocent. Anyone could defame anyone at will. The fact that these are real people with families, children, wives and parents is totally irrelevant. We should all think about that before making definite unfounded allegations. If we don%u2019t do that we either will have to introduce unheard of restrictions on the internet or we will end in total anarchies. I think you all will agree that self control is the best and most efficient way to control.

Alexus - Apr 08, 2009

The paper by Dario Benedetti in Physical Review Letters is undoubtedly an important paper. It comes meantime as no surprise however that Mohamed Elnaschie was there first. Please see the paper by him titled: Quantum Groups and Hamiltonian Sets on a Nuclear Spacetime Cantorian Manifold, in Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, vol. 10, pp 1251-1256. This paper is 1999 almost ten years ago. In table 1 Elnaschie calculates what seems to me to be spectral dimensions and Hausdorff dimensions. Two other papers from the same author in the same year and same Journal seem to discuss various related topics in more details. The first is Jones%u2019 Invariant, Cantorian Geometry and Quantum Spacetime, vol. 10, No 7, pp 1241-1251. The second is The Golden Mean in Quantum Geometry, Knot Theory and Related Topics, Vol. 10 No 8, pp 1203-1307. I have started to form my own opinion about certain things. In all events the claim of priority reported in the article seems to be inaccurate. This is not a calamity but as I said it seems to explain to me certain, how should I say, anomalies.

Andy Somer

chaosnet3 - Apr 23, 2009

Fascinating stuff. I mean what comes out as a conclusion, what is written in the title %u201CSpacetime Fractal Properties on the Quantum Scale%u201D. By not being a physicist myself, I would skip the parts that I do not have a secure knowledge of , but without dismissing their significance in making it possible, for the individuals to formulate their theories. Myself , armed with a few concepts at my disposal, driven by an impulse to make them meaningful for me, I have toyed with these thoughts, and I have posted them in the web. In successive, bursts of thoughts I would say, these are:

Fractal universe, fractal reality?

Fractal corridors? Existence, reality, universe is built by?

As space expands outwards since the big bang, it expands inwards too?

Observer to Planck length distance, fractal? Why we perceive continuity, out of the energy packets (quanta), the physical world is made out of?

Fractal dimensions harbour parallel worlds?

Sub-atomic particles having zero rest mass. Universe, an infinitesimally thin sheet?

Space, a result of forces? Interaction of forces? It is bound to be.

Arrived to thoughts that looks at the world, the universe as fractal, by following a path where chaos, is seen as the generator of the reality, we live in. Chaos, being ubiquitous and universal, becomes a tool to provide the explanations human individuals are seeking out.

Individuals experience the world. What experience is based upon. Would it be diferent if:

Human experience. What if, our human resolving time was on a par with the resolving time of a fast electronic device?

and how do we amass knowledge? Comes out of agreement or compromise,

Convention? What kind of convention is that? Agreement or compromise?

propellerdiver - Jul 19, 2009

I did not know this was an existing branch of physics. I've been calling this the "Horton/Who" universe, and writing on it as I try to justify my sense of a scientifically justifiable God and some form of non-chaotic Universe. The thought that the "the universe" could be generally spherical and have a boundary didn't make sense- a fractal structure does, and the fractal structure could exist in an "up and down" and "sidewise" direction, too. I wonder if Dr. Seuss was not a stealth physicist, who was trying to prepare young brains for understanding fractals later in life.

Rexy - Sep 04, 2009

I agree with Andy Somer but think that the most important paper which demonstrates what he said about Mohamed El Naschie work is the following paper. Semiclassical dimensions, quantum groups and the Cantorian manifold. Chaos, Solitons and Fractals 11(2000)pages 1137 to 1144. In this paper El Naschie introduced an amazing mathematical device which he calls semiclassical dimensions. He uses the theory of quantum groups and cantorian spacetime to drive this dimension. If he sets the Hausdorff dimension of his fundamental cantor set equal to 1, he gets the space dimension equal 3. Setting for the same set the Hausdorff dimension two third he obtains the space time dimension 4. For the Hausdorff dimension equal half one finds the fermionic dimension 5. Finally for a Hausdorff dimension equal the golden mean which means a random triadic cantor set, he obtains the dimension of a four dimensional Hilbert cube which is 4 plus phi to the power of 3. This means 4.236067977 as demonstrated very recently by Ji Huan-He in Shanghai, China. I think the reason for the success of T. N. Palmer's approach and Mohamed El Naschie's analysis lies in the fact that they stopped patching work. Rather than to go on adding little bits and pieces here and there to an old fashioned building, they started from scratch. You can go patching quantum field theory as much as you want and you will always get at best an aberration of what should have been an Apollo. I find it also mildly disturbing that someone in the world renown Perimeter Institute is not aware of fundamental contributions of T. N. Palmer and his papers which are published in the proceedings of the Royal Society as well the fundamental contribution of Mohamed El Naschie who used the aforementioned semiclassical dimension using quantum group theory.

محمد النشائي All El Naschie All The Time محمد النشائي

## No comments:

## Post a Comment