There is no room anymore for conventional skepticism.

Sockpuppet "Larssy" has left an interesting commment today on the FQXi forum, which of course is included among the El Naschie Watch archives.

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.

What discovery is Larssy talking about? He doesn't say. How do physical measurements of limited accuracy yield exact irrational numbers? By the experimenter not being stubbornly narrow-minded, apparently.

Do you think Larssy's been reading this blog? Because he defends precisely the people we've been criticizing lately. Hey, Larssy, you're welcome to post comments here.

Lately there is an encouraging trend in Naschienal Socialist propaganda. In the old days, El Naschie was a physicist respected world-wide. Today his opponents are criticised as conventional and mainstream. That's progress.

محمد النشائي All El Naschie All The Time محمد النشائى

It seems that this post on El Naschie's blog might be relevant:

ReplyDeletehttp://mohamed-elnaschie.blogspot.com/2010/01/enclosed-are-few-pages-from-700-page.html

Yes, good find. I'll do a post on that.

ReplyDeleteThe sockpuppet is probably referring to:

ReplyDeletehttp://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/01/100107143909.htm

Needless to say that such a discovery does not imply El Naschie's numerology is right or even close to reality.

shrink

Yes, Shrink. I know.

ReplyDeleteGreat minds think alike. :)

Dear Jason,

ReplyDeleteI would suspect that the 'Larssy' blog is talking about

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/327/5962/177

The golden ratio arises from pentagonal symmetries. The experimental group, Coldea et al, considers this support for an emergent E8 symmetry, which has Dynkin symmetries of 240=8x(2x3x5) roots - especially note the '5' fold symmetry and its relevance to the golden ratio.

Have Fun!

Dr. Ray Munroe

Thanks, Ray. I have been meaning to do a post with links to the various places the golden experiment is discussed.

ReplyDeleteI think Ray Munroe is a supporter of El naschie.

ReplyDeleteYou can find his comments of FQXI

http://www.fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/395

As a funny example of his post

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

***********************************

I hope this was the real Ray Munroe who sent this and other comments on fqxi. And not as usual El naschie using the name of Ray.

Maybe Ray can conveince us by E-infinity theory. Of course there are many evidence in the favor of this theory in wool fibre, biology, economy, literatture, particle physics and etc..

Anonymous, I think our Ray Munroe is the real Ray Munroe. Besides being a commenter on FQXi, he has published a couple of papers in Chaos, Solitons and Fractals.

ReplyDeleteSymplectic tiling, hypercolour and hyperflavor E12

Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, Volume 41, Issue 4, 30 August 2009, Pages 2135-2138

The MSSM, E8, Hyperflavor E12 and E-infinity TOE’s compared and contrasted

Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, Volume 41, Issue 3, 15 August 2009, Pages 1557-1560

I am happy to have him join in the comments here.

Ray, you are the same Ray Munroe who authored those papers, right?

Dear Jason,

ReplyDeleteSockpuppets and 'Anonymous' signings are not my style. I used my real name so you would know that I am a real person with a real HEP Spires history and a 1996 HEP-PH Doctorate from Florida State University.

I live in Florida (5th generation native-born), and I have never met El Naschie. Coincidentally, one of my GUT/TOE models (E12, K12', whatever you want to call it - E-Infinity is not my project) had an order of 684, one less than the 'order' of El Naschie's 'E-Infinity'. That is not a derivation of E-Infinity, nor is (10*phi^2)^2~685.35... I wrote a couple of short papers for Nasr Ahmed to put in his University's graduate magazine. El Naschie liked them and wanted to put them in CS&F. I said OK.

There seems to be a great misunderstanding about the Golden Ratio. Its geometrical basis is rooted in pentagonal symmetries. Draw a pentagon. Now inscibe a 5-pointed star within the pentagon's vertices. If you take ratios of the various line segment lengths involved, you will find a progression of x, (phi)x, (phi)^2 x. If you choose to keep drawing 5-pointed stars within pentagons, this progression becomes infinite. We realize that this gives a simple binomial equation: x + (phi)x = (phi)^2 x which has a simple solution given by the quadratic equation of phi = (1+SQRT(5))/2 = 1.618...

Garrett Lisi identified a 3-fold generational 'triality' symmetry in E8. I e-mailed him last Summer that there should also be a 5-fold 'pentality' symmetry based on E8's Dynkin diagram symmetries: 240 roots = 8x(2x3x5) roots. The 5-fold 'pentality' symmetry of E8 is related to the Golden Ratio. the above research paper also found ratios of phi in the masses of quantum states. This may imply that the E8 'pentality' symmetry is responsible for mass, but that is research in progress. El Naschie could be correct without fully understanding why...

Have Fun!

Dr. Ray Munroe

Ray, I believe it's really you, but since you live in Florida I wonder why your IP is in Ohio. Again, glad to have you commenting here.

ReplyDeleteBy the way, as a CS&F author, do you happen to know what's going on with that journal? They stopped publishing several issues ago, with no explanation given on their Web site.

And since you're an associate of El Naschie, do you know how he's doing? Did the operation go well?

Dear Jason,

ReplyDeleteNope - I'm right here in Tallahassee, Florida. Maybe my network's security system is tricking your system, or maybe you are just messing with me.

I don't know what is going on with CS&F. I had to wait a year for those two short papers to go to press.

I don't know El Naschie personally, but I wouldn't wish a fatal illness on anyone.

Have Fun!

Dr. Ray Munroe

Thanks, Ray. I don't wish fatal illness on people either. And I promise I'm not messing with you. You show up as Cleveland, Ohio. :)

ReplyDeleteTo Dr. Ray,

ReplyDeleteIf you wait a year to get your papers published in CSF. I think you would know that journal has a bad reputation, then why you didn't send to nuclear physics for example(Elesevier Journal). I think if you take random paper from CSF at the best you will find very low quality work. Please don't tell me that the main stream is opposing new ideas. I think if you have correct new idea you can convince any one. May I right.

What El naschie has done is not just wrong but it is non sense.

I gave you example as Huan who applied the idea of E-infinity in different many different fields

*********************************************

Comment from fqxi

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.

*****************************************

Dear Anonymous & Jason,

ReplyDeleteOf course I didn't know (beforehand) that my papers would take a year to go to print, while El Naschie's papers about my papers went to print in two months. I know that now, but hindsight is 20/20.

I've never studied wool. I hope none of my abstracts sound silly. Of course, 4.2325 is (1.618)^3 and not a 'random' number.

I'm not surprised that Coldea et al did not reference El Naschie. I think there are two reasons for this: 1) the group relates this occurance of phi to E8 symmetries - and correctly, there is a 5-fold 'pentality' symmetry embedded in E8, thus there is no need for their team to consider larger unification groups based on consistency with their data (however Distler showed that Lisi's E8 was insufficient, thus I am considering larger unification groups), and 2) professional physics is very political - given El Naschie's current situation, it would not be wise to overly quote or reference him.

Much of El Naschie's Golden Ratio work sounds like numerology, but an underlying 5-fold 'pentality' symmetry may explain everything in a rigorous manner - no need for 'E-Infinity'.

Have Fun!

Ray

Hi Ray, The context in which Lisi used E8 (and Distler objected to E8) was particle physics: A Theory of Everything (ToE).

ReplyDeletehttp://egregium.wordpress.com/2009/10/30/news-on-garrett-lisis-e8-theory/

Coldea et al. has nothing to do with particle physics or ToE. It's about cryogenic properties of an 8 gram crystal of cobalt niobate suspended in a magnetic field and pinged with neutrons. The only relation to particle physics at all is that neutrons happen to be particles. The neutrons weren't even the object of study. They were merely a probe of the crystal off which they were scattered.

It's hard for me to believe you really think Coldea didn't mention El Naschie because "professional physics is very political - given El Naschie's current situation, it would not be wise to overly quote or reference him." Please give a specific El Naschie reference that was relevant enough for Coldea to cite, had El Naschie's reputation been acceptable.

Well, there is a relation of the Coldea paper to high-energy theory via the exactly solvable spin chains, which bring in E8, or so... Zamolodchikov who did this theoretical background work and also introduced the "meson" notion did a lot of stuff relevant to string theory.

ReplyDeleteI guess one shouldn't overemphasize the notoriety of The Great Man. I am convinced that Coldea et al. never before have heard of him and his groundbreaking explanations of nature.

Actually, to the grand chagrin of all of us, he is completely irrelevant to the progress of physics.

Anonymous refers to Zamolodchikov's work such as

ReplyDeletehttp://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1989IJMPA...4.4235Z

and analogy between so-called quasiparticles and actual particles. Fair enough, good point. What specific and correct scientific work of El Naschie should Coldea et al. have cited if they had known about it?

Dear Jason & Anonymous,

ReplyDeleteYes, these are different applications – quasi-1-D magnetic effects vs. fundamental particles. E8 may be OK for describing these magnetic phenomena, but not a TOE. The Anonymous commenter correctly makes the observation that there are many analogies between Particle Physics and quasi-particles. Have you read “Observing Monopoles in a Magnetic Analog of Ice” by Michel J.P. Gingras in Science 326, 16 Oct 2009, pp. 375-6? He discusses an Ising magnetic spin ice that behaves like a Dirac String – thus implying the possible existence of the elusive Magnetic Monople.

I wasn’t ignoring Jason’s question. I have a stack of El Naschie papers at home. While going through it last night, I found a couple of somewhat relevant papers –

CS&F vol. 41, Issue 3, 15 Aug 2009, pp. 1263-5. “BPS states, dualities and determining the mass of elementary particles” – Just above his conclusion, El Naschie states “We conjecture that these are all highly unstable potential elementary masses associated with the disintegration of the vacuum at very high energy and in the presence of a very strong electromagnetic field

M_0=42=10(1.618)^3, M_1=26=10(1.618)^2, M_2=16=10(1.618)^1, M_3=10=10(1.618)^0, m_4=6=10(1.618)^(-1), M_5=4=10(1.618)^(-2).”

AND

CS&F 14 (2002) pp. 369-376. “On the exact mass spectrum of quarks” – In this paper, El Naschie uses various powers of the Golden Ratio to fit the fundamental masses of the quarks. Most of the ratios are not as simple as 1.618, however Table 4 under “Current quarks” claims an m_u/m_d ratio of 1.618.

I understand that this is not proof of E-Infinity. El Naschie wrote hundreds of short papers, and he is enamored with the Golden Ratio, so the odds were that he would have written a paper involving the golden ratio and mass. And I agree with Anonymous that Coldea et al may have never heard of El Naschie.

In my opinion, the El Naschie camp (as represented by the ‘Larssy’ sock-puppet) will consider this paper to be a partial victory because it says that the Golden Ratio may be relevant to mass ratios. My primary point is that the Golden Ratio is related to pentagonal ‘pentality’ symmetries. In my models, the pentagon is a Petrie diagram for the relevant 4-simplex (see for instance Baez, Christensen & Egan, arXiv:gr-qc/0208010v3).

Have Fun!

Ray

Ray, thanks for going through your stack of El Naschie papers. Since (1) El Naschie uses (1 + sqrt 5)/2 for everything, and (2) any group with order divisible by 5 can be contrived to have (1+ sqrt 5)/2 related to it by numerology, I'm not convinced Coldea et al. should have cited El Naschie. Or even that El Naschie's work in physics is anything but numerology. However, your findings do show why his supporters are excited. Good work. By the way, I see he is equating integers to powers of an irrational number. He does this frequently in his papers. Even as numerology, that's a fail.

ReplyDeleteDear Jason,

ReplyDeleteEarlier I said "I'm not surprised that Coldea et al did not reference El Naschie." Even though El Naschie has some minor mass predictions involving ratios of 1.618, they do not involve quasi-1-D quantum Ising chains. Even IF Coldea et al had heard of El Naschie, they were not duty-bound to reference or quote El Naschie. The mass 'reference' is too obscure.

You said "any group with order divisible by 5 can be contrived to have (1+ sqrt 5)/2 related to it by numerology". My claim is that this is not 'contrived numerology', but a direct result of underlying pentagonal symmetries, and therefore falls out of groups such as the icosahedron and E8 very naturally.

Please read the above Baez et al reference. They also have many SQRT(5)'s popping out of their 'contrived numerology'.

The Golden Ratio is a very strange animal. El Naschie makes constant use of 10 phi = 16 + k, where k = 5*SQRT(5)-11 = 0.18034...

If you play with the properties of phi: 1+phi=phi^2, you find that:

10 (phi)^(-2) = 4 - k

10 (phi)^(-1) = 6 + k

10 (phi)^0 = 10

10 (phi)^1 = 16 + k

10 (phi)^2 = 26 + k

10 (phi)^3 = 42 + 2*k

I realize these equalities look 'crazzy'. Play around with the numbers on a calculator. You will find that all of these equalities are either true to several decimal places or exact. It is probably why El Naschie is so enamored with this 1.618 number and its inverse 0.618. Phi really is a special number - don't let your biases cause you to overlook an amazing freak animal of the number system.

Have Fun!

Ray

In my previous comment I meant to say "equating integers to irrational numbers" but Ray knew what I meant.

ReplyDeleteRay, I'm not as amazed as you are. The thing is phi is closely related to 5, and all small integers are special. But different people are amazed by different things, and that's fine.

It would be amusing if John Baez dropped by to comment here.

The golden ratio "science" of the Great Man and his Brotherhood found place on "abovetopsecret.com" in the "General Conspiracies" section:

ReplyDelete"It turns out that the science journal Chaos, Solitons and Fractals was created as the “vanity” project of an extremely wealthy Egyptian engineer, Mohamed El Naschie, fixated on this Golden Ratio solution.... There are now a group of seemingly quack-scientists connected to his theory. As the blog El Naschie Watch reports December 12, 2009. Douglas N. Arnold, the president of the Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics (SIAM) calls out El Naschie and Ji-Huan He for unethical impact-factor manipulation of their respective journals. Arnold calls the cases “appalling” and “clear-cut.” As the mathematician author of El Naschie Watch comments on the supposed magic of the Golden Ratio: “The thing is phi is closely related to 5, and all small integers are special. But different people are amazed by different things, and that's fine.”"