Dr. Nasr M. Ahmed emails me.

Today Nasr Ahmed emailed me. After satisfying me that he really was Nasr M. Ahmed, he explained that he was no longer at Newcastle, having moved on to a position teaching physics in Saudi Arabia. That was why he didn't respond to my February 24 email to him at Newcastle.

He came to the conclusion after discussing El Naschie with reputable physicists that his early faith in El Naschie had been misplaced. Ahmed's thesis advisor Ian Moss, for whom Ahmed has great respect, told him that El Naschie's Cambridge affiliation is bogus.

Ahmed confirms his role in authoring the Wikipedia article, and regrets it, and regrets his past association with El Naschie.

His main quote from our email:

Now I know very well that El Naschie is not a real scientist at all. I learned well in the UK and I can differentiate between real and fake scientists... I don't want my name to be mentioned beside El Naschie's name because I am still on the starting point of my scientific life and this can harm my reputation.

Also

I agree with you about approximately all what you mentioned about El Naschie in your blog.

He asked me to take down the picture of him and I agreed. The case of the lost Wikipedia entry is completely solved; Dr. Ahmed's position is clear; the picture is unnecessary.

UPDATE:

A reader wants to know whether these two comments from This surfer is no Einstein were written by Nasr Ahmed:

Few years ago, I had the great honor and pleasure of being a Ph.D. student Mohamed. El Naschie. All people who have met Prof. El Naschie share the same him. He really has got a genius mind and a strong charisma. I still remember with him in Egypt and in London. When he speaks in physics, hundreds of brilliant come out of his mind. I haven’t experienced something like that in all physicists except him. For his students, that makes it very difficult to write down all the comments he said in the meeting! His papers represent a great source of inspirations current string theory research in the UK. My advice to people who hate professor

to try to improve their research abilities instead of attacking one of the most scientists in the world.

Posted by N. Ahmed from UK on June 11, 2008 3:35 PM

Few years ago, I had the great honor and pleasure of being a Ph.D. student Mohamed. El Naschie. All people who have met Prof. El Naschie share the same him. He really has got a genius mind and a strong charisma. I still remember with him in Egypt and in London. When he speaks in physics, hundreds of brilliant come out of his mind. I haven’t experienced something like that in all physicists except him. For his students, that makes it very difficult to write down all the comments he said in the meeting! His papers represent a great source of inspirations current string theory research in the UK.

Posted by Ahmed on June 3, 2008 6:53 PM

Dr. Nasr Ahmed denies writing the above two comments. He points specifically to the sentence "His papers represent a great source of inspirations current string theory research in the UK." Ahmed's research in the UK was neither related to El Naschie's work, nor was it about string theory. The impersonator apparently had superficial knowledge about Ahmed, which he could have gleaned from Ahmed's Postgraduate Magazine article about Cantor. But he didn't correctly state the subject of Ahmed's research. Ahmed's thesis can be found here and it has no El Naschie nonsense in it. Ahmed met El Naschie several times in London and Cairo, but doesn't consider himself El Naschie's student. El Naschie was never Ahmed's supervisor or advisor for any of his three degrees (B.Sc., M.Sc., Ph.D.) in Egypt or England.

Earlier he has also denied writing these three:

How could anyone say, Elnaschie theory or for that matter Lisi’s theory when most of the work has been done by others! Take E-Infinity theory and you will find that Mohamed El Naschie has done little more than piecing the results of dozens of scientists together. The main idea of a Borel mix of different sets is due to the American grand master of physics J. A. Wheeler. The idea of a cantor set is of course due to George Cantor, the semitic Russian German mathematical genius and inventor of transfinite set theory. The golden mean Hausdorff dimension is a theorem of the Americans Mauldin and Williams. The golden mean number system is due to the Egyptian, N. Ahmed in Newcastle, England. The fuzzy kahler was suggested by L. Marek-Crnjac. The 26 dimensional polytop is due to Chinese Prof. Ji-Huan He. The quantum field connection was introduced by Romanian-American Goldfain. The 2-Adic expansion was discussed first by South American Carlos Castro. The Hausdorff dimension 4 plus golden mean power 3 was discovered by the Indian, Mary Selvam. The role of prime number of Poincare dedocahedron is due to the Italian, Gerardo Iovane. The holographic principle is due to Dutch Nobel Laureate Gerard ‘tHooft. The idea of scale dependence is due to French L. Nottale scale relativity. The random walk model as well as the label fractal space time is due to the remarkable English-Canadian student of Richard Feynman, Prof. Garnet Ord. The entire idea of E-Infinity for the resolution of the two slit problem is based on Feynman path integral. The idea of the platonic solids ….to Elnaschie is from his teacher W. Heisenberg. The idea of geometrizing physics is due to Minkowski and Einstein. Complex time was taken from Weyl, Wick and Hawkings. The idea of time complexity and bifurcation was taken from two of Elnaschie’s teachers, Ilya Prigogine and the outstanding English Engineering scientists, Prof. J. M. T. Thompson FRS. I could go on indefinitely but I will not. A lit tle bit humility and modesty is in order. Self centeredness, racism, nationalism and religious discrimination are the mortal enemies of science. E-Infinity is not a revolution. It is an evolution of physics to higher levels by the collective effort of the scientific community. I. M. Smith

Ian Smith

on March 26, 2008

at 12:41 PM

I think I can explain how the golden mean of phi equal to 0.6190339898 enters into Elnaschie E-infinity and transfinite E8 exceptional Lie group theory. 1. E-Infinity spacetime is made of infinitely many elementary random cantor sets. The Hausdorff dimension of these cantor sets, according to a theorem by Mauldin and Williams is equal to the golden mean. 2. The stability of the dynamics of E-infinity is determined by KAM theorem. This theorem states that the most stable orbit is the one with a golden mean winding number. 3. The E8 Gosset which is 8 dimensional is made of two concentric 600 cells polytops each is four dimensional. These polytops are generalizations of the golden mean proportioned platonic solids. 4. Golden mean geometry guarantees simplistic dynamics. That means phase space area preserving or Hamiltonian dynamics. 5. The golden mean is the solution of the simple nontrivial quadratic equation for which there is no difference between union and intersection. This is the resolution of the two slit-experiment. 6. The golden mean binary system advocated in physics by the Egyptian, N. Ahmed at Newcastle Upon Thyne is the simplest number system. All the above 6 reasons conspired in recent time to revolutionize they way we do high energy physics. J. Sarions

James Sarions

on March 26, 2008

at 08:43 AM

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

UPDATE:

A reader asked whether Nasr Ahmed wrote the paper

Cantorian small world, Mach’s principle, and the universal mass network

*Chaos, Solitons & Fractals*, Volume 21, Issue 4, August 2004, Pages 773-781

Abstract:

Mach’s principle implies a connection between the mass of elementary particles and the mass of the universe. We suggest that within the framework of El Naschie’s Cantorian space–time, this principle arises naturally as a result of the network representation of this space. All masses and fundamental couplings are nothing but different scalings of each others. This suggests that the different forces of nature are just one unified force that appears differently at different energy scales. We derive this universal inverse coupling constant of quantum gravity for the case of supersymmetric unification in Cantorian space and discuss some quantum implications of the network representation of this space such as quantum nonlocality and quantum entanglement.

I got Nasr's explanation. This was in 2004. Nasr was inexperienced and overawed by the Great Man. El Naschie asked Nasr to write something for CSF. Anxious not to disappoint him, Nasr struggled to come up with something. He presented El Naschie with a page or so of text. It was in retrospect clearly unpublishable. It contained no equations. El Naschie padded it out to its full length, added equations, and published it in CSF soon after, under Nasr's name alone. Nasr's not proud of that paper and doesn't put it on his CV.

Nasr shouldn't have done that, but I can understand how it could happen. Throughout Egypt, El Naschie was revered as a great Nobel-worthy scientist. Ilya Prigogine had died only a year before, and I have no doubt El Naschie was schmaltzing up the "My Teacher" schtick. The young graduate student was in El Naschie's thrall and wanted to make a good impression.

The episode suggests El Naschie's modus operandi. He made people feel indebted to him and dependent upon him by publishing their papers in CSF with no real peer review. Or by giving them spots on the CSF editorial board to lengthen their CVs. Or, in the case of high-value targets like Nobel Laureates, by wining and dining them more expensively than academics are accustomed to. In return, people turned a blind eye to his affiliational claims. Nothing was said, no deal was made; but his beneficiaries had no incentive to question him.

محمد النشائي All El Naschie All The Time محمد النشائى

## No comments:

## Post a Comment