Sunday, March 21, 2010

FQXi El Naschie discussion archive part two

(Part one.)

Part one has become so long that Blogger chokes when I try to update it, so the thread is continued here starting in mid-March 2010.

Dan wrote on Mar. 21, 2010 @ 13:08 GMT
To Ray and Tom,

First I am not the Anonymous person. You should not be astonished when human beings do not understand each other. It is the other way round which is astonishing. It is not a matter of intelligence. Misunderstanding is created by education, background and character. For sure intelligence plays a role. I am talking however about another level of people. Take the Einstein/Bohr controversy. Two very stubborn and very proud people. No one wants to acknowledge the point of view of the other. Friends or no friends, it is not the point. There is false pride and your place in history. Niels Bohr is a miserable listener. Einstein is biased by his experience and the phenomenal success of his theory which is classical at heart when compared to Copenhagen quantum mechanics. My feeling and I may be wrong, is that all of you three Ray, Tom and E-infinity as at cross purposes with each other. Each one insisting that the other should follow the thread from the beginning the way he or they want it. My guess and I have more reason for it than just guessing, is that the E-infinity point of view is correct. The guess is based on the fact that E-infinity are a large group of scientists who discussed each others’ work intensively for twenty years or so and have produced a steady flow of ideas and papers. Ray and Tom on the other hand are insisting on instant gratification. For reasonable reasons they cannot sacrifice too much time to give up old positions and take new ones. You all cherish Einstein’s ideas now. How simple and wonderful is E equal to mc squared. But do not ask Einstein how much this cost him. Do not ask him how much he had to endure and how long he had to wait to be accepted and he had the upper hand compared to the E-infinity people who are non-European and non-mainstream. Worse still, E-infinity lives in the time where somebody like Jason could have a vote and consider himself a full partner in discussions with Ray and Tom while his blog is at best something for peeping Toms. I have one reason to think that E-infinity is correct and which may not take too long to explain. If I understood some of the more recent work of El Naschie correctly, then the standard model should have exactly 137 degrees of freedom. The conclusion is based on the equivalence of number of particles and the inverse electromagnetic constant at low energy of the standard model. This is an energy far below the electroweak. It is immensely below grand unification. It is unimaginably below the Planck unification. Now you must have a Weyl scaling connecting everything in E-infinity or it would not be a theory. The unimaginably high energy must be connected to the very modestly low energy through the same scaling. The scaling is given by El Nashcie’s bijection formula or Connes’ recipe which is based on both Penrose universe and von Neumann continuous geometry. Consequently the very high number of 496 massless gauge bosons of superstrings must be connected through scaling to the 137 of the standard model. If I remember correctly there was initially some misunderstanding in the number of gravitons and the number of Higgs in the El Naschie model. El Naschie acknowledged to all his group members as well as in open lectures that an American physicist, Ray Munroe, was the first to draw his attention that the way he was presenting the subject was open to misunderstanding. He gratefully modified his position and made it clear that a 0 Higgs does not have an up and down and should not be doubled but counted as single and so on. I leave it to you to see that in the literature and return back to Weyl scaling between 137 and 496. Simple mathematical reasoning which is not accessible to the brain of people who occupy it for defamation and cheap jokes and I do not mean only Jason with that, will demonstrate immediately that the scaling exponent must be 3 plus the golden mean while 496 must 496 minus k square and consequently 137 must be 137 plus k zero. You will find in the literature the value for k and k zero in terms of the golden mean to be 0.18033989 and 0.082039325. Transfinite connection is a well known technique. The earliest form was introduced by the eminent American mathematician Fritz John who used to work at Courrant’s Institute. He used it to solve a big problem in shell theory. This theory is an application of a classical field theory called theory of elasticity to the structure of shells. Mohamed El Naschie being initially a structural engineer understood this technique when he familiarized himself with Koiter’s theory. W. Koiter is a legendary Dutch figure in the history of theory of elasticity and he developed the only general theory for nonlinear bifurcation applicable to real problems in the construction of shells which was immensely important for NASA’s research and the safe launch of rockets carrying satellites and travelling to the moon. I got to know all that when I worked at NASA on a different subject. Now I am sure you will find it yes but, but, but….. I told you this is natural. How else could it be explained that we are still discussing the Einstein/Bohr controversy. Hope this helps, but I doubt it. Best regards,


Ray Munroe replied on Mar. 21, 2010 @ 14:29 GMT
Dear Dan,

As you acknowledge, I have a couple of CS&F papers where I analyzed E-Infinity along side E12. I think I understand E-Infinity's strengths and weaknesses as well as most, and I don't mean to sound prideful - pride should have nothing to do with a greater understanding of reality. On the Watch, Jason listed a "Hall of Fame"/ "Hall of Shame", and overlooked the fact that my name also belongs on that list (E-Infinity was in the title of one of those papers).

I also worked with NASA once upon a time, so we also have that in common.

The measurement of alpha-bar is the greatest success of the Standard Model. However, the Standard Model has been a miserable failure at fully understanding the Strong force. Decades ago, a result such as 137.082 039 325 might have been accepted, but now we have a precision Standard Model measurement of 137.035 999 679 (94). The only reconciliation that I see is *IF* you can prove that radiative corrections to alpha-bar that are built into the Standard Model are *WRONG*. Of course that requires overthrowing the most accurate part of the Standard Model. Not that I care much one way or the other - E-Infinity could be mostly right and partly wrong or the Standard Model could be mostly right and partly wrong. I am spinning all of these ideas off into a new direction.

Have Fun!


Jason replied on Mar. 21, 2010 @ 23:13 GMT
"On the Watch, Jason listed a "Hall of Fame"/ "Hall of Shame", and overlooked the fact that my name also belongs on that list (E-Infinity was in the title of one of those papers)."

Ray, I have dutifully added you to the hall of shame. You wrote "E∞" somewhat nonstandardly without a hyphen or parentheses and so slipped through my net. Thanks for fessing up. ;)

Anonymous wrote on Mar. 21, 2010 @ 16:46 GMT
To J.A. on Mar. 16, 2010 @ 18:58 GMT

Dear J. A.

In your post you mentioned

"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.

T H Ray wrote on Mar. 21, 2010 @ 17:48 GMT

I appreciate what you are saying about intractable points of view and instant gratification and all that; honestly, though, I don't think we've even gotten that far in this colloquy.

I don't see the physics in E-Infinity (in fact, I don't even see a coherent theory). My questions are objective points of interest -- if we wish to have a common ground of communication, we need common objective terms; specifically, we need to differentiate physical phenomena from the mathematical artifacts that transform them to measured results, and we need to know what is, by definition, physically real in the theory.

These are not mere extraneous or irrelevant technical demands. They are intrinsic to every physical theory. They give us the means to objectively test the truth: Does E really equal mc^2? Is spacetime really a physical object?

If a theory is coherent, my questions are easily answered. It has nothing to do with one's lack of knowledge of the theory. No one is in a position to make a judgment until the physical terms are clearly objective; make that happen, and then we might reasonably discuss intractability, instant gratification, or whatever other human emotions might enter.


E-infinity wrote on Mar. 21, 2010 @ 21:03 GMT
Dear friends. Too many questions to answer immediately. Not only too many but too deep. A friend of mine who works at CERN as a Director of Projects and who was a student and a colleague of Howard Jordi and had the distinction of working with Glashow once said, actually said many times, that what distinguishes theoretical physicists, the good ones, is lack of imagination, limited perspective and modest objectives. Seriously this might be a joke but Shakespeare says a lot of truth is said in jest. When El Naschie was talking to us about classical quantum field theory he really made a Freudian slip. He really meant the normal field theory which does not work in the case of quantum gravity. Gerard ‘tHoof and Mohamed and hundreds of others tried to modify quantum field theory to work. There are a few living people who understand quantum field theory better than ‘tHooft. Maybe for my money, Nobel laureate Steven Weinberg knows much more about quantum field theory than ‘tHooft. However ‘tHooft is both more revolutionary and more careful. He has, like Faust, two spirits living in his chest. The first wants to keep quantum field theory. The second wants to beat the hell out of it, kick it out and get something better based on the elementary building blocks of spacetime. However whenever someone else comes with a suggestion, based on ‘tHooft’s encouragement, it is ‘tHooft again who discourages him. It is Faust’s dilemma. At least this is how El Naschie recounts it. Forget about this bogus news which some idiots are trying to spread around regarding a fundamental disagreement between El Naschie and ‘tHooft. The two men like each other’s company and respect each other quite a bit although they are fundamentally different in their views about life and even science. You can bet that they will remain friends for life. Their families are friends and the friends of their friends are friends. Anything else is internet noise not worth the time spent on writing it. So anyway this is the non-classical version of quantum field theory. However, and here comes the Freudian slip, you are right. I mean the person who posed the question whose name I forget. It is true that the approach which El Naschie took put quantum field theory and classical field theory, for instance theory of elasticity in the same category but this is not surprising. Isn’t the objective of reinterpreting Copenhagen quantum mechanics to make it accessible to the classical mind? I hear both El Naschie and Nottale disagreeing. I might be wrong. However when you use geometry so extensively, you become classical. On the other hand infinite dimensional topology is as non-classical as orthodox quantum mechanics could never be. On the other hand to reduce things to geometry makes it accessible in a human way. A human way is a classical way so you have here not a vicious circle but a kind circle. El Naschie recounts many stories using famous names so that we do not forget it. Sometimes I think he is making up these stories to sound as if they were true pretty much like Feynman used to do. However when we checked, his stories all turn out to be true. This one is about Rene Thom. Mohamed said Thom told him that unless you have a geometrical picture any great mind will sink into desperation of incomprehension. This may be a Greek point of view. It may even be an old Egyptian point of view. In the subcontinent things are completely different. The Indians are much more familiar on a personal basis with numbers. They love manipulating symbols and numbers. Enough of that.

Now I address mainly Tom. You are right but to a point, like all of us. But you are wrong in thinking that there must be a clear distinction between mathematics and physics. I am afraid here we are entering philosophical questions which cannot be settled with blog comments. E-infinity is a theory. All what I can say here is that I give you my word it is a theory and some of us have lived a decade or so seeing it grow and unfold with their own eyes and with the help of their brain. To prove it to you here will require me to tell you too many things which you have already forgotten. After all these are 12 long communications, full of gaps. Even an introduction to quantum field theory normally takes one semester, four hours a week. Just accept a few things on good faith and work things out yourself starting anywhere where it is convenient for you and then you will see the world of E-infinity right. E-infinity, without a trace of a doubt, is the all embracing M-theory which the great Edward Witten is searching for. It embraces all other theories including many elements of superstrings, loop quantum mechanics and what have you. Why? Simple. Because it builds everything from the most elementary and yet complex thing which the human mind ever discovered or invented – the Cantor set. It is not Mohamed El Naschie’s paradise by any means. El Naschie learnt his trade from many, many other people. For instance the great Italian physicist Parisi used the Hausdorff dimension very early and long before El Naschie. Parisi also discussed in depth random services as a model for spacetime. These are the predecessors of E-infinity. El Naschie’s strength however maybe the following. He continuously learns new mathematics. He continuously applies new mathematics to physics with incredible boldness. He is not afraid to make a mistake and when people draw attention to a mistake, he immediately corrects himself. He knows an enormous amount of mathematics to the extent that lesser people think he is using buzz words to impress his readers which is a ridiculous suggestion not even worth answering to. At nearly 70 and although he is an engineer, he keeps reading all sorts of pure mathematical books and asking himself all the time where could I use this or that to help me get one step further. To give you an example, at the age of 65 he joined a class to study flags. I asked myself what the hell is flags? Then I realized how ignorant I was particularly because I studied mathematics and he did not. Of course he uses mathematical sophistication in a non-sophisticated engineering fashion. This is because he is originally an engineer but this saves him from being submerged into theorem proof, theorem proof style of writing. I was struck with the derivation which he gave for the inverse fine structure constant. He simply used the theory of flags. Around 2008 he came in and said that 137 plus k 0 is nothing but the hyperbolic volume of a manifold M. His result was a simple equation for him but a headache for us. He said you simply use the Gauss bonnet formula, take the volume of a fractal 5 sphere and multiply it with the Euler characteristic of a K3. He then wrote the simple multiplication 5 plus phi to the power 3 multiplied with 26 plus k equals 137 plus k 0. He then said that this is consistent with his theory about fuzzy Kähler manifolds of the type K3 used for compactification in string theory. In other words this 137… has at a minimum about 5 different so called physical interpretations. For my own taste all this physics is nothing but mathematics. Dividing the world into the worlds of ideas and realities is too naive to take literally in high energy quantum physics. However you should never forget that the 137.03… is a value measured in a laboratory at a room temperature so to speak compared to the accelerator of CERN. I could not possibly have answered all your wonderful questions but I have wise advice of the Chinese type. Try to pull with us in the same direction. Try not to be suspicious while you are reading at least. Try to convince yourself that we are not misleading you. When you start seeing things as we do in our E-infinity group, then change your attitude again and try to be skeptical, critical and suspicious of your own ideas. I guess this Chinese wisdom is nothing else but Hegelian dialectics. Isn’t that we call it in the West which we wrongly imported via Mao Tsi Tung. Sayonara – Oh my God no, this is Japanese!

Anonymous wrote on Mar. 22, 2010 @ 07:00 GMT
It is true that there is a deep friendship between the great man El naschie and G. Thooft. It is also true that Thooft knows very well that El naschie is a crackpot, and Thooft himself tried to advice El naschie to do physics in a proper way and to listen his criticis, but no way.

Thooft devoted a page on his website descriping the cruteria of a bad theoretical physicist which nicely fits the case of El naschie. This of course reflects the deep relationships and mutual understanding of each other.

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


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:

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


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

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

start your own publishing company and edit your own books.

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

7- Your next step should be to advertise your work. Your reputation may have

caused the xxx ArXives and Wikipedia to refuse your submissions.

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

( forging).( More detail can

be found in (

8- You have convinced your friends at your local bar, your family, your pizza vendor, your dog, and even a local radio station of the superiority of your theory.

El- Mohamed El Naschie answers a few questions about this month's new

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:


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. ( of course

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

I think with the above ten commands we have shown in an irrefutable way that El Naschie is in one to one correspondence with the criteria of a BAD THEORETICAL PHYSICIST. Congratulations for

being a champ!

Realy good friendship

Jason wrote on Mar. 22, 2010 @ 07:22 GMT
Anonymous, In point number 8, you mention "many interviews and TV shows in Egyptian channels." I heard he was on a TV show called Scientific Chat or something similar. I would love to get my hands on some videos of that.

Ayman wrote on Mar. 22, 2010 @ 11:57 GMT
This is a quick answer to a genuine Anonymous commenter. Mohamed El Naschie did not invent fusion algebra. This disclaimer is made on behalf of Mohamed El Naschie personally and with his consent. Mohamed El Naschie used 4D fusion algebra. The expert on this subject is the well known mathematician V.S. Sunder and his colleagues. These guys work mainly on Witten related topological quantum field theory. Please note this is topological quantum field theory and not quantum field theory and not classical field theory. In a manner of speech Mohamed El Naschie is a scientific nomad. As you know Bedouins as well as their northern counterparts in Lapland do not recognize borders and political demarcation lines. They just wander in the landscape of scientific literature and art. They are happy when they find a particularly nice Edelweiss or a kind word or who knows, maybe love. These were the words of Mohamed El Naschie at the birthday of his beloved friend, Otto Rössler. Now to the other not genuine Anonymous who is most probably Said Elnashaie, the mad man of the 6th October District near Cairo. To this particular man I also have the privilege to give this message. Neither Gerard ‘tHooft nor El Naschie will give you the honor of spitting in your face. However you are forgiven because you are a mad man. Those who are not mad and are using you, like Shadia, Hisham, Drosser of Die Zeit and Schiermeier of Nature will get their comeuppance sooner than you think, so enjoy it while it lasts. We find no insult which would be enough for you except one. You are Jason. Be like that then.

Jason replied on Mar. 22, 2010 @ 13:11 GMT
"Those who are not mad and are using you, like Shadia, Hisham, Drosser of Die Zeit and Schiermeier of Nature..."

Ayman, who is Hisham?

Ray Munroe wrote on Mar. 22, 2010 @ 13:07 GMT
Dear Friends,

This is a physics blog. Please stop throwing insults at El Naschie, Jason and Said. I have never met any of these people, but I will stop participating if these insults continue.

I do not intend to be difficult, but Fibonacci's sequence contains an infinite number of integers: 1,1,2,3,5,8,13,21,34,55,89,144,... and there are also an infinite number of integers that we can multiply this series with. One of those (infinite number of integers) is two, and this yields the familiar E-Infinity sequence: 2,2,4,6,10,16,26,42,68,110,188,288,... Given an infinite number of integers on which to normalize, we should be able to get arbitrarily close to the measured result of alpha-bar = 137.035 999 679 (94). As such, normalizing on the integer 10 seems somewhat arbitrary. Yes, 10 is a small number that is easy to use, and gives reasonably good results, but it does not seem to be as accurate as QED and the Standard Model.

One of the bloggers said that alpha-bar = 137.035 999 679 (94) at room temperature, as if to imply that it might be larger at a temperature of Absolute Zero. Alpha is a running coupling that varies with renormalization scale energies, but is normally cut-off at 'low' temperatures. It would wreak havoc with our Astrophysical data if alpha was different for the hottest blue stars versus the hot yellow stars versus the slightly cooler red stars. I still think your best bet is to challenge the low-energy radiative corrections to the fine structure constant, and realize that this will be equivalent to declaring war on QED and the Standard Model.

I can relate to the blogger that said "He has, like Faust, two spirits living in his chest. The first wants to keep quantum field theory. The second wants to beat the hell out of it, kick it out and get something better based on the elementary building blocks of spacetime." I live in the same paradox. My thesis involved the Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Model. I was so enamored with the Standard Model for so many years that it was difficult to develop Quantum Statistical Grand Unified Theory (My first inspiration for that theory was in 1979 - My friends thought I should share it with Paul Dirac (Emeritus Prof at Florida State U. at the time) but I kept quiet until I thought it was ready). At first, I thought the theories were at odds with each other. Once I finally accepted that both theories might be true, I realized that the Complementary Principle requires overlapping observables (between two different true theories) to equal. This paradigm shift allowed me to develop Variable Coupling Theory.

Have Fun!


Jason replied on Mar. 22, 2010 @ 14:08 GMT
You are admirably polite to all parties, Ray. Good for you. Personally I don't mind being on the receiving end of insults, and of course I give as good as I get, but it creeps me out when they make unfounded scurrilous accusations against Jihan Fadel for no reason but misogyny or jealousy. Come on, she's just an actress and a pretty lady. What's the point.

Ray Munroe replied on Mar. 22, 2010 @ 14:47 GMT
Dear Jason,

The problem with slinging mud is that everyone in the vicinity also gets hit with some mud. I don't mind wearing a little bit of mud - I won't melt. I have never met any of the people involved, and I don't know the dynamics here, so I don't know who is "innocent" and who is "guilty". But if Jihan Fadel and Ayman Elokaby are innocents, then we should all respect that and leave them out of the rudest conversations. And she is pretty - she somewhat favors my wife's older sister (my wife is tan with brown eyes, whereas her older sister is fair with light green eyes - their German-Irish-Cherokee heritage leads to different combinations).

Have Fun!


Jason wrote on Mar. 22, 2010 @ 14:14 GMT
By the way, my Jihan Fadel photo gallery has been updated.

[E-infinity persuaded the FQXi admin to delete the next two. TOO LATE!]

E-infinity 12 wrote on Mar. 22, 2010 @ 14:55 GMT,,,,,,,,,,,

Jason replied on Mar. 22, 2010 @ 15:02 GMT
Oh Dear. You have inadvertently posted the email addresses of the E-infinity group.

E-infinity 12 wrote on Mar. 22, 2010 @ 18:34 GMT
E-infinity communication 12

The Menger-Urysohn transfinite theory of dimension as used in E-infinity theory

Before continuing our discussion we must give you some literature on the subject as well as give the various people who contributed to E-infinity their due by mentioning their achievements. The easiest way to start studying the transfinite theory of dimension is to look at the work of Nada, Crnjac, Iovane, He and Zhong. Prof. Shokry Nada is a professor of topology who got his Ph.D. from Southampton, UK and although he is originally Egyptian he is since many years part of the full time staff of the University of Qatar, Dept. of Mathematics. I strongly recommend contacting him personally but only on scientific questions. He has no patience for gossip or triviality and will not answer to things like those using the internet for entertainment on an unacceptable level. I give here without any particular order seven papers from these various authors that will help in studying the Menger-Urysohn theory tailored to E-infinity and physics. All papers are from Chaos, Solitons & Fractals. On the mathematical theory of transfinite dimensions and its application in physics, 42, 2009, p.530. The mathematical theory of finite and infinite dimensional topological spaces and its relevance to quantum gravity, 42, 2009, pp. 1974. Partially ordered sets, transfinite topology and the dimension of Cantorian-fractal spacetime, 42, 2009, pp. 1796. On the Menger-Urysohn theory of Cantorian manifolds and transfinite dimensions in physics, 42, 2009, p. 781. Density manifolds, geometric measures and high-energy physics in transfinite dimensions, 42, 2009, p. 1539. From Menger-Urysohn to Hausdorff dimensions in high energy physics, 42, 2009, p. 2338. From the numerics of dynamics to the dynamics of numerics and vice versa in high energy particle physics, 42, 2009, p. 1780. It is however recommendable to go back to the original contribution of Menger and Urysohn. The papers of Urysohn are most in French and German. Menger published mainly in German and English. There is an important classical book by Hurwitz, a Polish mathematician writing in German. You will find all of that referred to in the papers of Nada, Iovane, He and Crnjac. Regarding the golden mean in physics, we forgot to mention a few papers which were initially considered outlandish but in the meantime, that is no longer the case. They are important papers by Leonard J. Malinowski, Electronic golden structure of the periodic chart, CS&F, 42, 2009, p. 1396. The other papers you will find on Elsevier’s Science Direct.

To understand E-infinity fast we recommend that you take no short cuts. You must read at least one review paper by Mohamed El Naschie or Marek-Crnjac from the beginning to the end. At a minimum you should read El Naschie’s paper in David Finkelstein’s journal, Int. Journal of Theoretical Physics, Vol. 37, No. 12, 1998 from the beginning to the end. It is fair to say that after flirting with nonlinear sciences due to his background in the theory of stability and bifurcation as well as Rene Thom’s catastrophe theory, El Naschie started to seriously enter into nonlinear science and chaos due to the encouragement of his friend, the chaos pioneer, Otto Rössler. Much of what he knows about chaos was taught to him by his Israeli friend, the well known scientist Itamar Procaccia from the Wiseman Inst. as well as the legendary figure of chaos, Mitchell Feigenbaum. El Naschie was highly impressed by the overall personality of Mitchell although he did not share his passion for red wine and smoking. El Naschie is almost a vegetarian, unlike Mitchell who lives from red meat.

Maybe it is time here to correct some old mistakes and omissions. El Naschie in retrospect was always at pain to acknowledge that Indian meteorologist Marie Selvam may have been the first to notice the E-infinity theoretical value of the inverse electromagnetic constant. He mentioned that on many occasions before but he asked me to mention that again on this occasion. In addition we must acknowledge that Carlos Castro did some important work on E-infinity and it is with sadness that we note that he moved towards blogs and internet publications, leaving serious discussion with his old friends on science. However these few words are said because we cannot rewrite history as we like. The truth remains always the truth, no matter how painful it is. A person who is outside our group but works with incredible dedication on fractal time is a German American Susie Vrobel. We should mention her work like Fractal Time and the Gift of Natural Constraints, Tempos in Sci. & Nature, Structures, Relations and Complexity, Vol. 879, June 1999. Another person outside our group who works with dedication on fractals in cosmology is the South African Jonathan J. Dickau and we recommend his paper Fractal cosmology, CS&F, 41, 2009, 2102. Now we should return to our main subject.

The vital so called bijection formula of E-infinity theory basically says the following. If you want to know the Hausdorff dimension of a Cantorian set in n dimensions then all that you need is the inverse of the zero set raised to n minus 1. As we said earlier and we will prove it again, the Hausdorff dimension of the zero set is the golden mean. So if we want to know what the Hausdorff dimension is in two dimensions, we take the inverse of the golden mean and raise it to two minus one. That means we would have 1 divided by the golden mean which because of the nice property of Feigenbaum’s golden mean renormalization is exactly equal 1 plus the golden mean. For three dimensions you can easily work out the result to be 2 plus the golden mean. For four dimensions you obtain the famous formula which is 1 over the golden mean to the power of 4 minus 1. This is 1 over the golden mean to the power of 3 which is our famous number 4 plus the golden mean to the power of 3 equals 4.23606799…. What is interesting now is to look into the zero case and the empty set case. Let us see what the dimension for n equals 1 is. This would be the inverse of the golden mean to the power of 1 minus 1. This would be equal to the inverse of the golden mean to the power of 0. This means it is unity. In E-infinity this is called the normality condition. The one dimension is a special case. Here the Menger-Urysohn extension of the topological dimension and the Hausdorff dimension coincide and are equal to unity. Let us go one step further and ask what the Hausdorff dimension is in dimension 0. I mean now the Menger-Urysohn dimension 0. Then we have 1 divided by the golden mean to the power of 0 minus 1 equals minus 1. That means it is the golden mean to the power of 1 which is equal to the golden mean. Thus we have proven the assumption. Now we go to the second most vital step and ask what the Hausdorff dimension is when the Menger-Urysohn topological dimension is equal to minus 1. Remember this is the empty set as defined classically. The result is we have 1 over the golden mean to the power of minus 1 minus 1 which means to the power of minus 2. This means we have the golden mean proper to the power of plus 2. Now we have resolved indirectly the famous two-slit experiment. The most conservative explanation is due to the work of Mohamed El Naschie together with his late teacher, fatherly friend and mentor, Prof. Dr. Dr. habil Werner Martienssen who sadly died a few weeks ago. Martienssen and El Naschie decided to give the wave the Menger-Urysohn dimension of the empty set. This is a Hausdorff dimension equal to the golden mean to the power of two. The particles on the other hand get a Menger-Urysohn zero and a Hausdorff dimension equal to the golden mean. All these are of course interpreted as probabilities but I am running ahead of my theory. I will repeat all of that later on. El Naschie asked a trivial question but in doing so, he solved a major problem. He said why stop at the empty set? Why not ask if there are emptier sets? Being a naive engineer he said why should I integrate from minus 1 to plus infinity. From many engineering problems of struts on an elastic foundation extending relatively from minus infinity to plus infinity, some time referred to as full or half space in theory of elasticity, he is used to integrate from minus infinity to plus infinity. So he found emptier and emptier sets with Hausdorff dimensions equal to golden mean to the power of 3, then golden mean to the power of 4, then to the power of 5 and so on. At minus infinity you will have the golden mean to the power of infinity. Since the golden mean is smaller than one, to be raised to infinity you have an absolute 0. That way El Naschie discovered as it would turn out later, a unidirectional system giving a hint at the unidirectionality of time starting at a singularity. When he reached this result he wrote a paper in some Pergamon mathematical journal and dedicated it to his teacher and mentor, Ilya Prigogine who was rather excited about it and said so in correspondence. Related results were also communicated to K.F. von Weizsäcker who was very excited about it and wrote as much. Weizsäcker advised El Naschie to take the work of David Finkelstein seriously and told him that his own work was quite near to that of Finkelstein. My recounting of all these anecdotes may not be very accurate because I know them all second hand from someone who was told by someone that El Naschie told him. However the big paper dedicated to Ilya Prigogine is there for everyone to read and so is the complimentary letter of Weizsäcker to El Naschie. I am saying all these relatively unimportant facts because there is a whole industry now on the internet whose main reason d’être is to shed doubt and spread doubt and rumors and lies about E-infinity and its founders. El Naschie’s theory was not invented in 2008 when all this noise started with an article published in Scientific American. El Naschie has been working on his theory since the late 80’s. Only Garnet Ord and maybe Laurent Nottale were first chronologically speaking.

I think we have covered substantial ground on Menger-Urysohn theory and the extension of the classical empty set to the absolute empty set by El Naschie. The relevant papers which are cited in the pure mathematical literature quite a bit will be given to you in the next communication. It is important to understand now that we have subdued infinity. In Cantorian spacetime and fractal spacetime there is no ultraviolet or infrared catastrophe. Everything is regularized automatically because we are working in a naturally renormalized geometry. Everything has at least two major dimensions to describe it. Therefore the old fashioned uniqueness of dimension theorem does not apply and do not restrict us anymore. That is why Cantor’s theory is a paradise from which we should not be evicted as David Hilbert asserted. E-infinity is based on Cantor’s paradise. There is no room here for cheap jokes except from those uncorrectable philistines whose jokes just pollute every site in the blogosphere. I am sorry for using these harsh words but E-infinity or not, we are luckily all human. Until next time, all the best.

E-infinity 13 wrote on Mar. 22, 2010 @ 19:34 GMT
E-infinity communication 13

Transfinite dimension applied to the two-slit experiment with quantum particles

Before we start again we ought to give some literature about the extended Menger-Urysohn system. The first important paper here is El Naschie’s 1994 paper On Certain ‘Empty’ Cantor sets and their Dimensions, CS&F, Vol. 4, No. w, 1994, p. 293. Three related papers which may be useful are Is quantum space a random Cantor set with a golden mean dimension at the core?, CS&F Vol. 4, No. 2, p. 177, 1994. Statistical geometry of a Cantor Discretum and Semiconductors, Computers Math. Applic. , Vol. 29, No. 12, p. 103, 1995 and Time symmetry breaking, duality and Cantorian space-time, CS&F, Vol. 7, No. 4, p. 499, 1996. Finally a very important general paper is by two Romanian mathematicians Mircea Crasmareanu and Cristina-Elena Hretcanu called Golden differential geometry, CS&F, 38, 2008, p. 1229. This particular paper incorporates the golden mean in a fundamental way to produce golden differential geometry which is extremely valuable in understanding E-infinity theory.

Now there are a few realizations which one should draw from El Naschie’s E-infinity. First an infinite dimensional system is necessarily chaotic. This is really a theorem. We first knew about it from the experimental work of Ji-Huan He using a computer and drawing infinite dimensional cubes. He did not really make it infinite. You do not have infinity on a computer. He went as far as a 26 dimensional cube. Then we realized that the great mathematical engineer and mathematician David Ruelle presented and used this theory in some early work. I am not sure but I think Ruelle also gave a proof. You will probably know the name of David Ruelle if you work in nonlinear dynamics for his contribution including Ruelle-Taken’s scenario for turbulence. There is an anecdote to tell here. Some hated that a civil engineer should be such a good mathematician which David Ruelle is. He could not get his paper on turbulence published even though he was an Editor in Chief of a journal. At the end he got fed up, submitted the paper to himself and accepted and published the paper anyway. The scientific community therefore owes him two things, an apology and thanks. Of course it is a procedure which should not be generalized but there are until today those who are consumed by jealousy and who keep attacking Ruelle for publishing his own paper in his own journal. In his famous book he recounts how a certain person used to go from one library to another library to tear out his paper from the journal copy in that library. Unbelievable what jealousy and hatred does to people, even scientists. Mind you this was even before blogs and internet vandals masquerading as scientists. Any case enough of that.

An important other point if the role played by the zero set and the empty set in physics. Physicists seem not to have incorporated this in a systematic way and have not developed the intuition to work mathematically with nothing instead of something. Thank God for B. Mandelbrot, M. Barnsley and Otto Peitgen. They gave us some intuition about fractals. Thank God for material scientists who were the first to jump on fractals and use them. In high energy physics on the other hand things were and are still relatively very slow indeed. The reason is they do not know how to use mathematics properly for fractals and connected to physics. They only use the marvelous device of Hausdorff dimension. Alas the Hausdorff dimension is not a topological invariant. The marvelous thing about the new theory, as shown in the work of Alain Connes and Roger Penrose is that both, the topological Menger-Urysohn dimension and the Hausdorff dimension are connected in one formula. In the theory of Connes this is done implicitly. In El Naschie’s work this is explicitly as evident from his bijection formula discussed earlier on. For this reason we will have to discuss at length the work of Tim Palmer who came to similar conclusions but in a qualitative way and could not make quantative computation because he does not assign the right dimension to the empty set. You could say Palmer discovered fractals for quantum mechanics but only qualitatively. His biggest triumph and achievement in quantum mechanics was his ingeniously apt formulation – quantum mechanics is blind to fractals. However by not admitting Menger-Urysohn minus 1 dimension to the classical empty set which represents the vacuum at its first level, he could not resolve the problem of quantum mechanics except qualitatively. Palmer’s paper is on the ArXiv in a revised form since 2009. The paper was published in yet another revised form in the Proceedings of the Royal Society and we strongly suggest that you read it. Some profound work preceding the work of Palmer is due to the group around the very competent mathematician and nonlinear dynamics connoisseur Prof. George Nicholas. Three from the same family published a very influential paper on the two slit experiment in Chaos, Solitons & Fractals many years ago. Again this paper was motivated by the work of El Naschie on the same subject using a simple analogy to the three point chaos game. This chaos game as well as the four point chaos game is well explained in the relevant literature referred to in the papers of G. Nicholas and M. El Naschie all published in Chaos, Solitons & Fractals. What has passed unnoticed was several papers written around the same time or slightly after in which Mohamed El Naschie uses the theory of Menger-Urysohn to explicitly show that the two slit experiment with quantum particles and the wave collapse could be explained completely rationally, you could say almost classically, using the Menger-Urysohn theory of dimensions. This theory can be worked out in infinite dimensions only when spacetime has an infinite dimensional topology. This is the case with the Hilbert cube or El Naschie’s four dimensional cube inside another four dimensional cube and so on ad infinity. The idea which started with the work of El Naschie was refined considerably in its mathematical formulation first in Italy by Prof. Gerardo Iovane from the University of Salerno, Dept. of Mathematics and subsequently in several papers by the remarkable Russian mathematician A.M. Mukhamedov, from Kazan State Technical University, Russia. Maybe some will recall that hyperbolic geometry was invented in the University of Kazan. In this connection we would like to draw attention to a recent paper by Prof. Mukhamedov entitled Towards a deterministic quantum chaos, published in Problems of Nonlinear Analysis in Eng. Systems, No. 2(32), Vol. 15, 2009. There are many papers about the two-slit experiment published in CS&F including those of Prof. S. Nada who used density manifolds, Prof Marek-Crnjac who used quotient manifolds. Both ideas go back to work by El Naschie and for proper understanding you need knowledge of geometrical measure theory and/or string theory. Some very simple straight forward papers were published earlier on by El Naschie like The two-slit experiment as the foundation of E-infinity of high energy physics, CS&F, 25, 2005, p. 509. Let me give you an excessively simplified version but having the same flavor.

The probability of finding a Cantor point in a one dimensional Cantor set is a topological probability equal to the golden mean. The probability of finding no Cantor point is the complimentary probability, namely 1 minus the golden mean. This is the golden mean squared as a pocket calculator will assure you. Based on this elementary observation you can reason that the probability for a Cantor point to be at a point number 1 or a point number 2 must be the sum of two probabilities and it turns out to be the sum but where the golden mean square gets a negative sign. So the sum is really the difference. The difference between golden mean and golden mean squared is equal to the golden mean to the power of 3. On the other hand the multiplication theorem of the theory of probability teaches us that being at point 1 and point 2 simultaneously is the multiplication of the golden mean of the golden mean squared. This is again equal to the golden mean to the power 3. This simple analysis shows us that based on probability theory we cannot distinguish between a point at 1 or 2 or a point at 1 and 2 simultaneously. This is the indisguishability condition. That is why you cannot say what is a particle and what is a wave unless you prepare the experiment accordingly. In quantum mechanics, as in Cantorian spacetime, a point can be in two different places at the same time. When you take measurements by imposing yourself on the empty set, the empty set is no longer empty and the wave collapses. It is a simple as that. Simple as it may be, this is a hefty dose for this communication and after you have had a look at the literature, I will go through all that with you once again in far more detail. However you must work with me. I can repeat all this to you a hundred times but unless you do it yourself, and although it is very simple, it will slip through your fingers and you will shake your head in bewilderment wondering what it is all about. It is very simple. However it seems nothing is as difficult as simple, unfamiliar things. On the other hand, familiarity breeds contempt and you become careless. We promise you to be neither. Best regards

Jason wrote on Mar. 23, 2010 @ 03:41 GMT [Deleted by the FQXi admin.]
El Naschie Watch is looking for photographs of these E-infinity group members. Please help if you are able. Thanks!

Dahham I. Alani
King Abdulaziz City for Science and Technology

Mohamed A. Z. Habeeb
Laser and Optoelectronic Center, Directorate of Physics, Ministry of Science and Technology, Science Research Campus, Jadiriah, Baghdad, Iraq

Leila Marek-Crnjac
Ljubljana, Slovenia

Shokry Ibrahim Nada
Qatar University

T H Ray wrote on Mar. 23, 2010 @ 16:28 GMT

You wrote in part, "The probability of finding a Cantor point in a one dimensional Cantor set is a topological probability equal to the golden mean. The probability of finding no Cantor point is the complimentary probability, namely 1 minus the golden mean. This is the golden mean squared as a pocket calculator will assure you."

Interesting probability calculation. We're informed that the probability of finding some point exceeds unity, and the probability of not finding it exceeds 60%. Okay, yes, I've heard you describe the golden mean as 0.618 ..., but even given that, this statement makes no sense. In this latter case, one calculates a 62% probability of finding some point, and (of course!) a 38% probability of not finding it.

You say, "Based on this elementary observation you can reason that the probability for a Cantor point to be at a point number 1 or a point number 2 must be the sum of two probabilities and it turns out to be the sum but where the golden mean square gets a negative sign. So the sum is really the difference. The difference between golden mean and golden mean squared is equal to the golden mean to the power of 3. On the other hand the multiplication theorem of the theory of probability teaches us that being at point 1 and point 2 simultaneously is the multiplication of the golden mean of the golden mean squared. This is again equal to the golden mean to the power 3. This simple analysis shows us that based on probability theory we cannot distinguish between a point at 1 or 2 or a point at 1 and 2 simultaneously. This is the indisguishability condition. That is why you cannot say what is a particle and what is a wave unless you prepare the experiment accordingly. In quantum mechanics, as in Cantorian spacetime, a point can be in two different places at the same time."

Naturally, the sum of these probabilities (0.68 + 0.32) is unity; that's hardly meaningful, however. It's simply how a binary probability is calculated. Quantum unitarity informs us of the same result -- it has nothing to do with distinguishing particles from waves; every wave caaries a nonzero particle probability and every particle a nonzero wave probability. Superposition is another principle entirely; the superposed state is a calculational artifact, not an actual physical state.

And to top it off, points of Cantor dust, or whatever you wish to call the construction, are 100% "findable" being as they are constructed from an iterative algorithm easily rescaled on the one dimension line. And furthermore, the set is a mathematical construct, not a model of point particle physics. I don't see how you can conclude that a "Cantorian spacetime point," for whatever that means, can be in two places at once -- since a point has no topological properties (it is dimensionless by definition), and points of the Cantor set are distinctly constructed. What am I missing here?

Seriously, you find no weaknesses in your claims?


E-infinity 14 wrote on Mar. 23, 2010 @ 22:53 GMT
E-infinity Communication No. 14

Defining the probability in Cantorian spacetime, negative dimensions and the transfinite theory of Menger-Urysohn

Defining the probability in a Cantorian setting initially seems to be a hopeless undertaking. Some may be worried that such a task could lead to the same end station of George Cantor’s mental institute or was it only a nerve clinic. After all Anthony Eden ended up in something similar after his Suez Canal adventure. Let me explain. Suppose we have n distinct objects. Suppose we have an experiment where choosing a single object of the n is truly random and cannot distinguish between the different objects. Combinatorics says that the probability of haphazardly picking a particular object is equal to 1 over n. Suppose the ensemble element n is infinitely large, the probability is thus zero and combinatoric probability fails miserably to help us in a Cantorian setting because we have not only infinitely man Cantor points, but actually uncountably many. This uncountable infinity brought some people to despair. Cantor’s diagonal methods were labeled nonsense by nobody less than Kroniker. He stood in the way of Cantor’s promotion to professorship in a respectable German University like Berlin or Munich. Poor George was left in a small provincial German university. Finally he was mocked and teased by his colleagues to the extent that he several times suffered from a breakdown of nerves. It may also have been the intense contemplation of the Cantor set and its meaning. When you have taken out all the middle thirds out except for the n points iteratively and continued this process ad infinitum, then you have no length left. The set is measure zero. How on earth could you have not only something left which has the cardinality of the continuum, but you have something with a respectable and considering the situation quite sizeable finite dimension. OK it is a Hausdorff dimension but dimension never the less equal to ln2 divided by ln3 which is 0.63…. Not bad for something which is not there. Friedrich Hegel in his dialectic coined an ugly Greek/Latin half breed word coincidentia oppositorium. He must have had the Cantor set in his mind. Remember a line is a dimension 1 and is a continuum. Compare this with the Cantor set which is not really there because it is measure zero. It has a dimension 0.63 and thus a majority holder in the company and as if this is not enough, it has the cardinality of the continuum itself. In more earthly words, a Cantor set has as many points as a continuous line. No wonder Shakespeare said ‘there are things in heaven and earth Horatio’. No wonder that until this day many atheoretical physicists would rather not know anything about Cantor sets. This all would convince you that Cantor sets have nothing to do with reality and consequently it should have no place in physics. I call now to the witness stand Prof. Friedrich Pfeiffer from the University of Munich. This professor is probably one of the world’s most prominent professors of mechanical engineering. He was not only the Head of the Department of a Centre of Excellence, namely the University of Munich, Germany but also he was the Editor in Chief of the German Journal Ingenieur Archv. If you published a paper in this journal then you reached the promise land in Germany. The professor’s specialty is chaotic research of mechanical systems applicable directly in the industry. Before joining university again, the famous professor worked for an even more famous car producer in Bavaria, BMW. Some of his contributions were to take unnecessary noise from the motor and the clutch and let a BMW car be as silent as a Rolls Royce. No wonder BMW bought Rolls Royce. In a manner of speaking the famous professor was taking the Cantor set causing chaotic noise out of the BMW car. Cantor set, esoteric or not for physicists, are as real as hell for engineers and many other professions. It is strange that of all people high energy scientists and quantum physics theoreticians who deal with things which nobody has ever seen or experienced firsthand should consider Cantor sets esoteric and resist its integration into quantum physics as a basis of new micro spacetime geometry. There are of course many exceptions which we mentioned earlier, David Finkelstein, Heinrich Saller, Parisi, Ord, Nottale and many others. However the typical theoretical physicist neither appreciates nor most of the time knows anything about Cantor sets. Now let us return to our subject properly. When the combinatorial method fails this is no surprise. We have the geometrical method. You know in the darts game you also have infinitely many points but then you define probability geometrically by the quotient of different areas. Great. However calamity struck. A Cantor set has no measure. So we have no length. We are dealing with an esoteric phenomena measured zero. The geometrical method and geometrical probability goes out of the window. Of course there are sophisticated methods based on measured theory. Mark Kac described probability theory as a measure theory with a soul. We would like to keep this soul and remain in probability theory as much as we can. When all things fail, you rub Aladdin’s wonder lamp and ask the genie to bring you in some topology. A line, thin as it may be has a dimension 1. The Cantor set also has a dimension and from a well known theorem by Mauldin and Williams a random Cantor set of the triadic type also has a dimension when you assume uniform probability which is the simplest assumption you could possibly make and this Hausdorff dimension is equal to the golden mean. Now we can define a topological probability so to speak. Such quotient would be made of the dimension of the Cantor set divided by the dimension of the line. This is the golden mean divided by 1 which is equal to the golden mean. At long last we have at least something with which we can do some computation. If the simplicity of the solution confuses you and if the question you pose to yourself confuses you even further, do not despair. The great Poincare himself managed to confuse himself in an exam for mathematics and failed. He took the examination once more, succeeded and then invented topology. When he became so famous he failed once more. This time he did not realize that he was wrong. He failed to recognize the work of Cantor. He considered Cantor’s geometry a gallery of monsters. He agreed to a certain extent with Kronecker that Cantor’s ideas are maladies which inflicted mathematics and he was sure that mathematics would soon recover from it. You would rightly say nowadays that you could take all this nonsense from anybody, including Kronecker the arch enemy of the non-finite but for God’s sake, not Poincare. However we cannot rewrite history. Poincare did not recognize his three body problem. The geometry of non-integrability is the geometry of chaos and the limit set of chaos and the backbone of any chaotic system is as James Yorke taught us, a Cantor set. God invented the integer. Everything else is the work of man. This is of course total nonsense, typical for Kronecker on this subject. We have now so many infinities and hierarchies of cardinalities beyond Kronecker’s and even Cantor’s imagination. They are sufficient to make Kronecker turn in his grave, infinitely many times. I hope you got the right taste for the thing to come next to resolve the two-slit experiment which is the basis for the Cantorian proposal for quantum spacetime. And yes, a point, whatever we mean with this word can exist at two different locations at the same time in the infinite dimensional topology of Cantorian spacetime and similar spaces. One of the nicest people one could ever meet anywhere at any time is an English/Canadian physicist whose name is Garnet Ord. Ord is the man who coined the word fractal spacetime. He corresponded and discussed many things with Richard Feynman. Einstein is great but Feynman is something else altogether. Ord intuitively knew about the power of fractals and Cantor sets but if you see Ord and El Naschie discussing things regarding Kronecker and Cantor you would think these two extremely close friends are in two totally opposed sides as far as finite and infinite are concerned. I will keep many anecdotes about El Naschie and Ord for the next communication but I advise you for the time being to familiarize yourself with the greatest mathematical genius of all time, Georg Cantor by reading the wonderful book of Joseph Warren Dauben entitled Georg Cantor, His Mathematics and Philosophy of the Infinite, Princeton University Press, 1979. All the best. (23.3.10).

T H Ray wrote on Mar. 24, 2010 @ 12:28 GMT

You wrote in part, "And yes, a point, whatever we mean with this word can exist at two different locations at the same time in the infinite dimensional topology of Cantorian spacetime and similar spaces."

You are confusing "point" with "point set." (And what do you mean by "exist?")

When one speaks of infinite copies of the interval [0,1] and its points, as characterizes the Cantor set, one does not conflate the infinite self-similarity of intervals with the bi-location of points on the interval. What Cantor discovered, is that if an infinite set occupies any set, the set is itself infinite -- which leads to the Cantor set having the cardinality of the continuum. You can find a lucid explanation of this in Herman Weyl's short and enlightening book, appropriately titled The Continuum.

None of this, however, is physical. At least, you have not made the physical connection, and maybe I'm just dense, but the more you post the more confusing it gets and the more the errors (as above) multiply. And why include all this ancedotal, historical and personality information -- it doesn't add anything useful to support your claims. Give me something scientific to work with, E, if you want a fair review.

I did take some pains to find out what you mean by "Cantorian spacetime," and I turned up a CS & F paper, "Cantorian Spacetime Foundations, Part I) by G. Iovane at the University of Salerno (whom I assume is a member of your research group). At last, I find a communication in language a theorist can understand -- and it makes me wonder why you never answered my simple and direct question of what is "physically real" in your theory, because Prof. Iovane clearly understands this necessary requirement. His abstract begins, "We are going to show the link between the E-Infinity Cantorian space and the Hlbert spaces (H-Infinity). In particular, El Naschie's E-Infinity is a physical spacetime, i.e., an infinite dimensional fractal space, where time is spacialized (sic) and the transfinite nature manifests itself."

Even though I have little idea what E-Infinity is, Iovane's statement is coherent to me, because I am familiar with Hilbert spaces, complex analysis and imaginary (i.e., spatialized) time. I can see immediately that Iovane is attempting to reduce a two dimensional (i.e., complex) analysis to one dimension and identify the imaginary (spacelike) part of a time metric with a real--although transfinite--continuum. I haven't yet read the paper, so I don't know if the mathematical technique and its conclusions are plausible (In fact, I expect that the idea that nature is transfinite will be especially contentious).

Anyway, why can't you follow this example and just lay out the science, and leave out the extraneous nonsense? You might find that you'll get a warmer welcome in forums like this, and reduce the criticism toward your thesis, in favor of serious and collegial dialogue.


Ray Munroe replied on Mar. 24, 2010 @ 12:52 GMT
Well said, Tom.

T H Ray replied on Mar. 24, 2010 @ 13:43 GMT
Thanks, Ray. I think we are in agreement that if one is going to spend time at all on this topic, it should be spent on science, not wasted on personality cults and flame wars.

Speaking of spending, $31.50 for Iovane's paper is a bit steep for me. Do you know of any open access? -- it's a 2005 publication, after all, and I don't find that charge reasonable for a 5 year old paper.

Correcting the title, "Cantorian spacetime and Hilbert space: Part I - Foundations."


Ray Munroe replied on Mar. 24, 2010 @ 14:11 GMT
Dear Tom,

I have copies of some of El Naschie's papers, but not Iovane's papers. When I first found out about El Naschie, I went to the local Science Library (the Dirac Science Library at Florida State U paid for a CS&F subscription) and printed off several papers. I have since received some papers from El Naschie and friends. Either I need to make another trip to the Library (which won't happen before the weekend - I'm busy with Fiscal year end and inventory), or some of the E-Infinity group could e-mail me copies (I think they all know my e-mail address and now I know theirs' as well).

I agree with you that these E-Infinity postings require more formalism, and perhaps don't require as much personality.

Have Fun!


T H Ray replied on Mar. 24, 2010 @ 15:09 GMT
Thanks again, Ray. It's inconvenient for me at the moment to travel to the university library. I am interested in the attempt to reduce a Hilbert space complex analysis to real analysis, though -- it would necessarily have to employ unknown (at least, to me) methods which, if valid, might lead to something significant. (For one thing, it would obviate any reference to real spacetime, because in this case time would not only exist independent of space, but space would not exist at all -- cf. Markopolou's geometrogenesis concept). If any paper that you possess explores the subject, I would be grateful to have a copy.


Ray Munroe replied on Mar. 24, 2010 @ 15:17 GMT
Dear Tom,

I am also interested in Hilbert space. Is it merely a mathematical tool with no physical implications? Or is it a glimpse into the reality of Hyperspace?

Have Fun!


Jason replied on Mar. 24, 2010 @ 16:54 GMT
"the E-Infinity group could e-mail me copies (I think they all know my e-mail address and now I know theirs' as well)."


E-infinity 15 wrote on Mar. 24, 2010 @ 15:29 GMT
E-infinity Communication No. 15

Set language and probability language dictionary of E-infinity as a two-slit experiment with quantum particles

A philosophically inclined cleric in England invented diagrams which are quite useful to use to move from one language to another in E-infinity theory. I mean set theoretical language and the language of probability theory or events. This was important for El Naschie in developing E-infinity and may be helpful for some in understanding this part which is crucial. The classical language of events or probability language speaks of probability space, events, impossible events, not d or the opposite of d, either/or or both, both, mutually exclusive and if then. In set theoretical language and in the same order you could say universal set, subset, empty set, compliment of d, the union operation, intersection operation, operation of intersection for a totally disjoined set and a set being a subset of another set. The set notations are different from one author to another but are well known. El Naschie studied mathematics in Germany under Kaluza. The anecdote connected to examining a rebellious though peaceful member of the extra-parliamentary opposition is laid down in his reminiscence of his student years written on the occasion of his 60th birthday, A tale of two Kleins unified in strings and E-infinity theory, CS&F, 26, 2005, p. 247. I hope referring to these things is not interpreted draconically as cult which is way over the top to say the least. Everyone has his own style of writing. Some like these anecdotes as a welcome distraction from the boredom of too much formality. It is immodest to recommend one’s own taste but it is hypocritical to recommend somebody else’s taste. If we must we would rather be something, we would rather be immodest than hypocritical, so if our kind friends would bear with us and consider that we are doing all that for fun and free of charge to the benefit of everybody else, then at least be so tolerant to leave everyone express himself in the way he likes. If you do not like something, do not read it. We are not offensive to anyone and mentioning the outstanding achievements of people like Richard Feynman, Nottale, Ord, Rössler and Tim Palmer should not be provocative to anyone. We would like that the young people have the right examples to follow at least if they are serious about science.

Now let us suppose you are on the unit interval of which a Cantor set was made. The dimension of the interval before digging so many holes in it is unity. This is the same for the Hausdorff dimension as well as the topological Menger-Urysohn. If you are a member of the Cantor set then the dimension attached to you would be zero for Menger-Urysohn and the golden mean for Hausdorff. If you are not then you are definitely in the empty set. The corresponding dimension would then be minus 1 and the golden mean to the power of square. These simple facts follow from Connes’ formulation of Penrose universe. This is just another formalism of the bijection formula with a slightly different mental picture. You can have whatever mental picture you want as long as this helps you to have this mystical feeling of understanding. Now you have two basic operations from the set theoretical point of view, union and intersection from which you get two dimensions for two elementary manifolds. The quotient manifold is given by a dimension which is the quotient of the dimension of the sub manifolds. That way you find the elementary fact that the dimension of a manifold which can sustain the preceding set theoretical conditions is nothing else but the infinite dimensional Hilbert cube which is not identical but very similar in many aspects to the space studied by Ji-Huan He. It is the same space which you obtain from putting a four dimensional cube into another four dimensional cube and so on ad infinitum. Again I am probably going to fast now but everything you know from string theory and high energy physics can be obtained as a deformation of this infinite dimensional Hilbert cube which has a Hausdorff dimension four plus the golden mean to the power of three, a topological expectation value of exactly 4 and a formal dimension of infinity. It is infinity in a hierarchal sense. It is infinity because you are taking infinitely many concentric four dimensional cubes to reach this result. Do not forget, Ruelle’s theorem. A classical system is necessarily chaotic when the dimensionality is infinity, even when it is hierarchal. In a sense you are holding infinity in the palm of your hand as in the famous poem of William Blake. For a geometrical visualization and easy access to the connection to string theory, I strongly recommend that you carefully study the excellent paper entitled Twenty-six dimensional polytope and high energy spacetime physics by Ji-Huan He, Lan Xu, Li-Na Zhang and Xu-Hong Wu, CS&F, 33, 1, 2007, p.5-13. In addition we cannot stress enough the importance of reading the work by the exceptionally gifted young Italian professor of applied mathematics, Gerardo Iovane. One of Gerardo’s computer graphics representations of fuzzy K3 Kähler manifold of E-infinity was entitled ‘E-infinity Cantorian Universe: A fractal manifestation of love’. Many of Gerardo’s papers can be obtained free of charge either directly from Elsevier’s science direct who do not always charge for every paper when you come to it through Google Scholar or can be found on certain pirate blogs claiming to belong to E-infinity members which is not always true.

Mohamed El Naschie is a walking encyclopedia when it comes to certain anecdotes of famous people with whom he had the privilege of talking. Again I hope this remark is not taken as cult. He said quoting Sir Prof. Herman Bondi that a fool can ask more questions than a wise man can answer’. However he hastened to say following Weizsaker who was again quoting Heisenberg ‘one has to learn, sometimes the hard way, that asking the right question is normally half of the answer’. We are frequently perplexed because the questions we are asking are imprecise or meaningless or undecidable. Undecidability is not the work of the devil. In fact undecidability in the sense of Gödel implies chaos and chaos implies fractals and fractals imply E-infinity theory. Very frequently when one does not understand something, one should not try too hard. There are very frequently mental blockages caused by our very selves. It is best to go and sleep and not to try too hard. During sleep the subconscious work and it is frequently according to surrealistic artists far more intelligent than consciousness. That is at least the theory of the sleep walkers advocated by Koestler. Accordingly I am now going to sleep. It is one o’clock after midnight local time. (24.3.10)

Jason wrote on Mar. 24, 2010 @ 17:25 GMT
"It is one o’clock after midnight local time. (24.3.10)"

E-infinity, it was 15:29 GMT when you posted that. There was nowhere in the world where it was 1:00 local time to within a good approximation.

Even to within a bad approximation, you appear to be placing yourself close to the Tokyo time zone. That part of the world is not a hotbed of E-infinity activity, so I believe you are attempting to mislead.

T H Ray wrote on Mar. 24, 2010 @ 18:54 GMT

Like all static spaces, the Hilbert space is a mathematical construct. When we find it useful to generalize our familiar Euclidean space to n-dimension or infinite dimensional spaces, we often use the Hilbert finite dimension spaces, R^n or C^n, so that vector space products can be calculated. Hilbert spacecomplex analysis is useful in quantum mechanics calculations, e.g.

"Hyperspace" doesn't have any meaning unless one speaks of physically real spacetime. Then, dimensions higher than the 3 + 1 dimension space (Minkowski space) of Riemannian geometry and relativity are arguably physical (such as the 9 + 1 or 10 + 1 dimensions of string theory).

I divine that Iovane is trying to show that a spacetime construct called "Cantorian spacetime" that lives on R^n may be cast in an infinite dimension Hilbert space model, which would imply that space does not physically exist (at least, in the terms we conventionally think), leaving only a timelike vector in Banach space (which is necessary to accommodate completeness; every Hilbert space is a Banach space). This is not totally wacko: Because the Cantor set is compact, and shares cardinality with R^n -- even though R^n is not compact, we might expect (by the self similarity which charatcerizes Cantor's set), the return of all vectors to a fixed point; i.e., the set would exhibit something akin to Poincare recorrence, as we find in dynamical systems. Very cool. Another reason that the idea just might be "crazy enough" (if proved, which is of course a tall order) is that Mach's Principle also treats space as a convenient fiction rather than a physical object. This leaves only time as "physically real" (by Einstein's definition, " ... independent in its physical properties, having a physical effect but not iteself affected by physical conditions."). What Iovane is calling "Cantorian spacetime" is then transformed to a 1-dimension metic of time alone.

Which is why I am interested. I also give time a physical definition in my research. So does Fotini Markopoulou.

I have to say that I don't actually believe that Iovane has a proof. However, his idea is not crackpot -- I just personally think that complex analysis is the minimum number of dimensions (2) in which one can guarantee real physical results; this is, of course, consistent with QFT and string theory.


Fractal man wrote on Mar. 24, 2010 @ 22:50 GMT
You guys should know about that. Every student of physics in America knows the story of Niels Bohr turning around in the lecture room and saying to himself loudly in his Danish accent ‘my fear is not that the idea of your theory is crazy. I fear it is not sufficiently crazy to explain nature’. Maybe it was slightly different. I do not remember but, but, but, but there is nothing called crackpot ideas, not on this level. Great minds, or minds which we later on call great, did not really know what they were doing when they discovered what they discovered. I read that I am afraid I have to tell you in a delightful informal paper by El Naschie, the Egyptian whose name is taboo in certain quarters. The young Heisenberg did not really know what he was doing. He did not even know the word matrices. El Naschie said he heard it from the horse’s mouth. Similar reasoning applies to Schroedinger’s equation. He thought he had at last found the spacetime wave. When he discovered it is just another mathematical formulation for Heisenberg’s matrices, he despaired and said he would rather have become a shoesmith. History of science abounds with such things. However let me tell you this. Connecting Hilbert space with E-infinity was done for the first time by Mohamed El Naschie in the Springer book which was published on the occasion of his 60th birthday. Three other papers followed. After that Iovane who is a mathematician started tidying El Naschie’s ideas. El Naschie himself is the first to say there are two kinds of scientists. Those who resemble scouts discovering unchartered territories in the wild west. After them come the engineers with good maps to start building roads and railways for the Western Pacific. The engineers with maps are the mathematicians. El Naschie belongs to the scouts who do not really know except vaguely that they are going west. Of course this is all exaggeration but I hope you are getting the point. A once upon a time fractal man.

T H Ray wrote on Mar. 25, 2010 @ 14:46 GMT
Fractal man,

The Bohr quote was supposed to have come during a presentation by Wolfgang Pauli. Bohr and some colleagues at the back of the room were making a disturbance, which interrupted the talk; Bohr explained what they were discussing, "We are all agreed that your theory is crazy. The question which divides us is whether it is crazy enough to have a chance of being correct. My own feeling is that it is not crazy enough."

Put in context, remember that Bohr is the one frequently quoted as saying in various forms that "if one is not shocked by the results of quantum mechanics, one does not understand it." Pauli, among others, is one who made sense of quantum mechanics; i.e., put it on firm theoretical ground.

Today, we can speak -- as Gell-Mann often does -- of the quasi-classical domain, in which quantum phenomena can be somewhat translated into classical terms. This is very important to the integrity of quantum theory (at least, if we want to preserve relativity, which lives in the classical domain) because if quantum rules -- most fundamentally, uncertainty and nonlocality -- do not apply to the whole universe, quantum mechanics is only a special non-relativistic case of microscale phenomena. QM, in other words, would not be a theory at all, just a jumble of mathematical language to describe secondary effects of an unknown physical origin.

So why does practically no researcher believe that Quantum Theory (specifically quantum field theory, or QFT) is not a complete theory? It has to do with the relativistic behavior of spacetime in the continuous field. In his later years, Einstein was widely regarded as a crank for obsessively working on what is popularly called the unified field theory. His last serious contribution was appended to his posthumnous book The Meaning of Relativity, as a chapter called "The relativistic theory of the non-symmetric field." Continuous function physics -- i.e., classical physics -- relies on boundary conditions; one specifies the limits of the field and works inward, so to speak, to derive physical predictions while making as few assumptions as possible; eventually, one discovers singularities (space collapsed to a point)and the predictions end in a not entirely satisfactor manner, because there is a big gap between what one can predict and what one can verify. This obviously vexes a unified theory -- one would like to know that all events follow from one's assumptions, and there is a way to objectively know it.

As Einstein put it, in the aforementioned paper, “One can give good reasons why reality cannot at all be represented by a continuous field. From the quantum phenomena it appears to follow with certainty that a finite system of finite energy can be completely described by a finite set of numbers (quantum numbers). This does not seem to be in accordance with a continuum theory, and must lead to an attempt to find a purely algebraic description of reality. But nobody knows how to obtain the basis of such a theory.”

Well, that was a longwinded way to bring the discussion back to "Cantorian spacetime" and E-Infinity. As Pascal said, however, "I regret that I don't have time to make this short."

Point is, this is the history that matters to a theorist -- how to get from A to B without gaps. Otherwise, one looks like the queen in Alice in Wonderland who "imagines six impossible things before breakfast." It isn't any work to have ideas -- the labor is building a coherent theory from knowledge that we already possess. Einstein's widely misunderstood quote, "Imagination is more important than knowledge," does not imply that imagination replaces knowledge; it means that a theory has to reach beyond what is known, and then build a bridge to that "beyond."

Show me your bridge. Show me that 1) E-infinity and its identity with something you call Cantorian spacetime (which I don't yet understand how you even derive from Cantor's purely abstract set) has a physical basis; 2) Why you think the world is not finite, when every result in the Standard Model informs us that it is.

Look (and I am not especially addressing you personally, but the whole E-Infnity group) -- I'm not your adversary. Your only adversaries are facts and accuracy. If you think conventional quantum field theory (and Witten's extension to topological quantum field theory) is not the way to go toward a background-independent unified theory of nature, be prepared to row upstream, because the basis for it is firmly established in physics, theoretically and experimentally.

Good luck.


Anonymous wrote on Mar. 25, 2010 @ 21:47 GMT

It is true that there is a deep friendship between the great man El naschie and G. Thooft. It is also true that Thooft knows very well that El naschie is a crackpot, and Thooft himself tried several times to advice El naschie to do physics in a proper way and to listen his criticism, but no way.

Thooft devoted a page on his website describing the criteria of a bad theoretical physicist which nicely fits the case of El naschie. This of course reflects the deep relationships and mutual understanding of each other.

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


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:

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


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

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

start your own publishing company and edit your own books.

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

7- Your next step should be to advertise your work. Your reputation may have

caused the xxx ArXives and Wikipedia to refuse your submissions.

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

( forging).( More detail can

be found in (

8- You have convinced your friends at your local bar, your family, your pizza vendor, your dog, and even a local radio station of the superiority of your theory.

El- Mohamed El Naschie answers a few questions about this month's new

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:

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. ( of course

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

I think with the above ten commands we have shown in an irrefutable way that El Naschie is in one to one correspondence with the criteria of a BAD THEORETICAL PHYSICIST. Congratulations for being a champ!

Really good friendship

Anonymous wrote on Mar. 25, 2010 @ 21:54 GMT
El naschie mentioned in his recent CV

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.


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

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.


Honored for contribution to Science, Abdel Hameed Shoman Foundation, Amman, Jordan in November 2007. Shit

Jason replied on Mar. 26, 2010 @ 14:29 GMT
This is a good post. If it gets deleted, I suggest you re-post it without the s word.

Anonymous wrote on Mar. 25, 2010 @ 22:08 GMT
On the Ninth International Symposium Frontiers of Fundamental and Computational Physics 2008 had a lecture titled, it was a scandalous lecture,

“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.


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

Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.

*) Director

one can check his lecture

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 scientists"

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

Can the great man explain for us.

In that Symposium the great man was keen to be photographed besides present Nobel winners. As all we know, El naschie is a famous Nobel nominee.

Jason replied on Mar. 26, 2010 @ 04:10 GMT
This is a factual and substantive comment about El Naschie. Whoever nominated it for deletion should be ashamed.

E-infinity 16 wrote on Mar. 25, 2010 @ 22:26 GMT
E-infinity communication No. 16

Feynman El Naschie conjecture, fractal time, negative dimensions and some loose ends from previous communications.

First things first. There were some unintended omissions of truly exceptional contributions to E-infinity and fractal spacetime. Two names slipped our collective memory in the E-infinity group and this is disgraceful. First and second in no particular order is Karl Svozil from Austria in fact from Johann Strauss’ city Vienna and the exceptionally versatile and gifted Indian physicist and mathematician B.G. Sidharth. Svozil is actually one of the pioneers of fractal spacetime and he is the first to connect the idea of the British Canadian Garnet Ord with quantum field theory. Svozil works closely with the famous experimentalist and connoisseur of classical quantum mechanics and macroscopic quantum objects Anton Zeilinger. Svozil’s seminal paper is Quantum field theory on fractal spacetime: a new regularization method, J. Phys. A, Math. Gen, 20, 1987, p. 3861. He also wrote a marvelous book which helped our group quite a bit called Randomness & Undecidability in Physics, published by World Scientific, 1993. Sidharth on the other hand connected fractal spacetime with fuzzy sets and P-Adic quantum mechanics. He wrote a few very nice books of which I mention the following three: Frontiers of Fundamental Physics, Vol. 3 published by Universities Press 2007, The Universe of Fluctuations – The Architecture of Spacetime and the Universe under Fundamental Theories of Physics published by Springer, 2005 and Frontiers of Fundamental Physics 4 published by Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2001.

You probably do not know how these communications function. There are only a limited number of our members who have the time and are also capable of writing in reasonably good English. Very often somebody will write something and then it is circulated. Subsequently the English is edited by the handful of people who are really writing something different from pigeon English. We have no problem admitting our weaknesses and English is our greatest weakness. Zhang and Wu alerted us to a few serious and good questions. We apologize for the delayed reaction and answer. No disrespect is ever intended or implied. When something is not polite, it is our bad English.

The question came from if I am not mistaken, Tom and a lady scientist. I am sorry if we are mixing the names. The first thing is the question regarding the so called Feynman El Naschie conjecture. This is related to a book by Feynman about his secret love – general relativity. He wrote a marvelous little book called Lectures on Gravitation edited by B. Hatfield, published by Addison-Wesley, New York, 1995. I do not think Richard wrote anything. I taught him painting. Normally however his students collect his notes and lectures and make books out of them. The paper responsible for coining this expression is probably the short note by El Naschie A Note on Quantum Gravity and Cantorian Spacetime, CS&F, Vol. 8, No. 1, 1997, p. 131. Do not hold me responsible for every word but as I understood it, it is something like the following sketch. Feynman said there is some form of forces called van der Waal’s forces. If the molecule of a chemical reaction was completely orderly, these forces sum to a zero. It is because disorder creates these forces as forces due to non-equilibrium. They are forces created by fluctuation so to speak. Feynman claims however fluctuation in what? Mohamed El Naschie takes it from there. Spacetime fluctuates. No. He said it a little bit more subtly. A little bit more like Fubini. He said when your speed increases near to the speed of light, your weight increases considerably towards infinity and the time slows down until it stops. If space is fractal, so time is also fractal. The fluctuation of the fractal time creates this juggling which we then perceive as gravity. This is an extremely crude way to put it. So please read about it further in the following two papers by El Naschie: Remarks on Superstrings, Fractal Gravity, Nagasawa’s Diffusion and Cantorian Spacetime, CS&F, Vol. 8, No. 11, 1997, p. 1873 and Dimensional Symmetry Breaking and Gravity in Cantorian Space, CS&F, Vol. 8, No. 5, 1997, p. 753. We also read a comment by Tom about Bohr and his mad theory. I wish I could copy it and put it in an E-infinity communication. However there is something called copyright and morality so we ask here for permission from Tom first.

Finally somebody was talking about Hilbert space and E-infinity. We told you El Naschie was the first to find this connection interesting. In fact he also looked at Fock space of quantum field theory. Let me give you the most important papers by him in this respect which you can consult: Hilbert, Fock and Cantorian spaces in the quantum two-slit gedanken experiment, CS&F, 27, 2006, p. 39, Hilbert space, Poincare dodecahedron and golden mean transfiniteness, CS&F, 31, 2007, p. 787, Hilbert space, the number of Higgs particles and the quantum two-slit experiment, CS&F, 27, 2006, p. 9, How gravitational instanton could solve the mass problem of the standard model of high energy particle physics, CS&F 21, 2004, p. 249 and Gravitational instanton in Hilbert space and the mass of high energy elementary particles, CS&F, 20, 2004, p. 917. Some asked for a simple introduction to concepts and mathematics of E-infinity theory. I find them all of course simple but maybe the following are simpler The concepts of E-infinity: An elementary introduction to the Cantorian-fractal theory of quantum physics, CS&F, 22, 2004, p. 495 and A guide to the mathematics of E-infinity Cantorian spacetime theory, CS&F, 25, 2005, p. 955. The two-slit experiment is explained concisely and nicely in connection with negative dimensions and the golden mean in appendix F of the paper Time Symmetry breaking, duality and Cantorian spacetime, CS&F, Vol. 7, No. 4, p. 499. Two comprehensive papers on the two-slit experiment are the following: The Feynman Path Integral and E-Infinity from the Two-slit Gedanken Experiment, Int. J. of Nonlinear Sci. & Num. Simulation, 6(4), 2005, p. 335 and The idealized quantum two-slit gedanken experiment revisited – Criticism and reinterpretation, CS&F, 27, 2006, p. 843. A mathematical resolution may be found in Fredholm Operators and the Wave-Particle Duality in Cantorian Space, CS&F, Vol. 9, No. 6, 1998, p. 975.

We once asked El Naschie who the greatest theoretical physicist is of all time in his opinion. He said the trinity. We were surprised and asked what that is? He said Einstein, Heisenberg and Richard Feynman. He paused for a minute and then said depending on my mood or the problem I am solving. From Einstein he singles out simplicity, intuition and the idea of spacetime. From Heisenberg he found the idea of symmetry. From Richard Feynman it is his path integral. In fact in retrospect path integral is the main idea at least mathematically in E-infinity. The standard procedure of El Naschie’s formulation of E-infinity is summing over dimensions. Infinitely many of them and each dimension is weighted. Later on El Naschie started summing over exceptional Lie groups. In fact in one of his last papers he was summing over crystal groups. 319 of them which gave him almost exactly a large number 8872. I am ignoring the transfinite tail. 8872 you may recall corresponds exactly to the 8064 of classical Heterotic strings. In E-infinity 8872 plays a similar role to 685 of E12 of Munroe. When you look at it attentively you find you are summing over 17 two and three Stein spaces. Einstein space being one stein space. I told you on a previous occasion this is something which exceeded the knowledge of a certain American mathematician who is only good for cracking jokes on the internet and who finds everything that he does not know a good reason for a good laugh but not about himself. Of course it is about other people that he likes to laugh. Then you have summing over 8 exceptional Lie groups of the E type and this gives you 548. You can then sum over combinatorics in 11 dimensions and this gives you the 528 of Ed Witten. Finally you have the double E8 which gives you 496. This is the smallest number of massless gauge bosons known to give unification. If you want to read a truly nonconventional paper with exceptionally important findings, and then have a look at the three pages long note by El Naschie called The crystallographic space groups and Heterotic string theory, CS&F, 41, 2009, p. 2282. In this paper he derives the exact N zero which is 8872.135956. Weyl scaling then gives you everything you want including holographic boundary, superstring theory and even Renate Loll and Jan Ambjorn’s spectral dimension of spacetime, namely 4.02. In the next communication which will take a bit longer to write we will expand more on this and other subjects.

T H Ray replied on Mar. 26, 2010 @ 11:58 GMT

I appreciate the language difficulties. Don't despair. Today's universal scientific/technical language is English. In other eras it was Latin, French, German. Tomorrow, it may be Chinese.

That is why theorists of all nationalities try to communicate as much as possible in mathematical symbols. Even though every mathematical statement can in principle be expressed in natural language, its symbols have a specific and (usually) a commonly objective meaning. I admit I have often been stumped at some terms in your and your group's postings -- the most recent example I can recall is a reference to Schrodinger and a "spacetime wave" (what the heck does that mean? I thought) and then from the context, as it related to Heisenberg and matrix theory, I guessed that you meant the wave function of the universe and Schrodinger's disappointment that his function was not more than local. Okay, I get it.

Give us your mathematical derivations, from scratch, and then we begin on the same page. Specifically, how does one interpret a 1-dimension abstract Cantor set as a physically real spacetime (which would logically necessitate at least 2 dimensions)? That, I don't get. Unless we start there, however, nothing coherent follows. To recount a story I heard in my youth -- yes, it's sexist by today's standards, but relatively harmless and instructive -- a couple of guys were discussing what it means for a girl to be "stacked." Is it from the ground up, or does it only refer to the bosom? The argument that wins: "Everyone knows you can't start stacking something in the middle."

(Well, okay, yet consider the central limit theorem ... but I digress :-) )

So far as the Bohr story goes, it's well known and there's no copyright issue. Try this link:


T H Ray replied on Mar. 26, 2010 @ 12:00 GMT
Sorry, the link didn't come through.

Ray Munroe replied on Mar. 26, 2010 @ 12:57 GMT
Dear Friends,

The more I study E-Infinity and my latest ideas, the more I am convinced that they are related 'theories' - although the details diverge dramatically. Tom is correct that mathematics is a more universal language. Tom and I would not flinch at the idea of more serious mathematics. I cannot speak for the other, more anonymous, bloggers.

Personally, I'm OK with the idea of fractal space and fractal time, but I'm curious to know what a negative dimension is. I also wonder why our great experimental devices have not confirmed these ideas. A few months ago, I suggested (somewhat jokingly) to an FQXi friend, Frank Martin DiMeglio, that wrinkles in the brain's surface could be a 'fractal' antenna that allows us to sense Hyperspace. Conte et al came out with something similar in CS&F 41, Issue 5, pp 2790-2800. If the brain, spacetime and hyperspace ALL have a fractal nature, then the brain may be our link to experiencing and understanding an 'invisible' hyperspace.

And I agree with Tom about reducing down to two dimensions. In my opinion, one-dimensional objects are time-like, not space-like. I think the Golden Ratio fits naturally with two dimensions, and my examples are: 1) A sequence of Fibonacci Rectangles ad infinitum is a good 2-D space-filling routine, and 2) a sequence of Golden Pentagrams ad infinitum is another good 2-D space-filling routine.

Have Fun!


T H Ray wrote on Mar. 26, 2010 @ 15:58 GMT

Perhaps, then, you are in a position to explain what "E-Infinity" means, in language I can understand. What's our jumping off place? -- group theory? I am weak there, but willing to learn.

Personally, I am not okay with fractal dimensions and fractal time as primary physics. Reason: scale dependency. A scale invariant universe admits infinite self similarity of quantum elements; that does not imply, however, that scale itself possesses an independent reality. On the other hand, an independent (i.e., physically real) time metric implies scale invariant evolution of n-dimensional self organized elements in a complex system. For this reason, I give time the definition: "n-dimensional infinitely orientable metric on self avoiding random walk." Details at the InterJournal archive or here:

my site

On to "negative dimensions." I think this must refer to negative space, such as that in which string theory is formulated. There's an important technical reason for this to be so: although an extension of quantum field theory, string theory cannot admit physically real objects as point particles; hence, we require 0 + 1 dimensions to describe the fundamental 1 dimension object. Because we cannot do a complete algebraic analysis of a one dimension line evolving in less than 2-dimension space, however, the negative analytical space -2 allows a positive real result (man, I get the sinking feeling that I'm explaining this badly, but maybe as we go on in the dialogue, it will get better. Or worse. :-) ) in real analysis in dimensions > 2. Hell, just suffice it to say for the moment that string theoretical objects originate in negative space. To paraphrase what E-Infinity said: Trust me. :-) Why not experimentally verified? -- we and our instruments don't live in negative space; we're going to have to look for indirect ways to test the theory, and we haven't found them yet.

So far as the Golden Ratio goes, when you say that it "fits naturally" with two dimensions, I assume you mean that the one dimensional line of Fibonacci integers embeds in two dimensions, which is true. However, the space filling of which you speak is all "by hand" and not in any way that I can see as physical. While nature gives us many examples of Fibonacci-type proportion and recursion, I can't see that these phenomena are themselves independently physical, i.e., causative.

Thanks for launching some meaningful scientific discussion, Ray.


this post has been edited by the forum administrator

Ray Munroe replied on Mar. 26, 2010 @ 16:44 GMT
Dear Tom,

I might agree with 'E-Infinity' as in Nature is fractal-dimensional, but I do disagree with details. As I understand, the dimensionality of E-Infinity is trans-finite in that it makes an infinite-dimensional model seem finite (with equivalent fractal dimensionality). I have related these ideas to crystalline structures. For instance, E8 is the Gosset lattice in 8-D. What effects do we achieve if we now extend this Gosset basis cell into an 8-dimensional lattice where all directions extend out to infinity? This will introduce some new lattice effects that E8 could not explain by itself. Personally, I relate this extension to infinity as the effect of Kaluza-Klein particles. The E-Infinity group has not given me a satisfactory reason to normalize their 'Golden Sequence' (doubled Fibonacci Sequence) on the integer 10. My own details might be closer to '12 minus fractal' dimensional, and thus might be closer to my 'E12' than El Naschie's E-Infinity.

I started studying El Naschie's ideas two years ago. These ideas may be somewhat useful as a model, but I have yet to see a theoretical derivation that would satisfy me. I challenged the E-Infinity group to present a derivation that could satisfy some of their more outspoken critics, such as John Baez and Jacques Distler. In my opinion, they have not accomplished that. Perhaps the language barriers are causing a problem. I would like to hear Gerardo Iovane's unfiltered presentation of these ideas. I suppose he is Italian, and English is not his primary language, but we would understand the mathematics.

My model presumes that 'negative dimensions' are hyperspace. I wanted to hear their answer.

Have Fun!


T H Ray replied on Mar. 26, 2010 @ 16:55 GMT
Forum administrator:

Thank you!


T H Ray replied on Mar. 26, 2010 @ 17:56 GMT

It's this transfinite thing (at least, as applied to physics) that bothers me. Sure, it's demonstrable that nature is fractal-dimensional; when we say that, however, we don't mean that "dimension" has any different meaning than that which we commonly ascribe: sets of coordinate points determined from a fixed point of arbitrary origin (this supported by Brouwer's proof of the invariance of dimension). When we say "fractal," we mean that the measure is scale dependent, i.e., the point of origin is no longer arbitrary, but the locations of sets of coordinate points differ in accordance with the scale of measure, to the limit of a certain fraction of the Hausdorff dimension. Well, that's not a great explanation technically, though my point is that the infinite self similarity of a fractal object in no way implies infinite measure even when an associated metric has infinite length. That is only an artifact of the way in which we execute the measure, with this scale dependent concept.

What reason do we have to suppose that nature is scale dependent and not scale invariant? I find no reason, either theoretically or experimentally. I would welcome a counterexample.

I see no reason for you to relate your crystalline structure with 8 dimensional symmetry to a "transfinite" concept of E-Infinity. They are two different things geometrically: in your case, infinity simply means perfect symmetry, i.e., nonorientability of the structure ("...infinite in all directions") while the orientable E-Infinity metric is 1-dimensional. Now having been introduced to the notion of "Cantorian spacetime" and knowing that the Cantor set is compact, I can visualize that -- like that mythical snake that eats its own tail -- Cantorian spacetime is a 1-dimension circle and thus nonorientable. That makes no sense, however, in terms of physical measure; one would have to think of it, in my opinion, as an impossible object like a Penrose triangle--mathematically constructible but not physical.

Anyway, my guess about what "negative dimensions" might mean was apparently wrong. With you, I await an explanation.

Having fun yet? :-)


Anonymous wrote on Mar. 26, 2010 @ 20:33 GMT
I think that El naschie has extended the notion of dimension to be even complex, not just a real. This has a plenty of applications in psychology and brain studies. This can be related to El naschie -Feynman hypothesis, that if you sum over all fluctuating spaces of complex dimension living inside an infinite nested Hilbert cubes you get results free of schizophrenia. And for free you will get gravity theory. This technique is very efficient in studying market, and becomes more transparent when you super-symmetrize the theory, i.e to deal with super market. I hope any one could tell me details about these glorious work of El naschie.

Ray Munroe replied on Mar. 26, 2010 @ 21:23 GMT
I'm sorry - you lost me with super market - I can't help but think of a grocery store. I met my wife in the Express check out lane at Publix, where shopping is a pleasure...

Where were we?

Oh Yea! We were relating Supersymmetry and Schizophrenia - what a crazy combination!

Have Fun!

E-infinity 17 wrote on Mar. 27, 2010 @ 12:57 GMT
E-infinity communication No. 17

Summing over paths, dimensions, exceptional Lie groups and knots in E-infinity and tidying some loose ends from previous communications. Part I

I am taking over from my colleague and will start by apologizing for various gaps in the presentation. The number of states which are of interest are 496 for superstrings, 528 for the 5-Brane model, 548 for summing over 8 exceptional Ei Lie groups, 685 for summing over 17 two and three Stein spaces and the same sum for 12 exceptional Lie groups some of which are not from the Ei family. Finally and most importantly 8872 for 219 three dimensional crystalographic group. The knowledgeable reader will remember that the 17 two dimensional crystalographic group, that is to say the 17 Alhambra Andalusian tiling corresponds to 230 three dimensional group. This is an error and a common one. The 17 correspond to 230 minus 11 making 219. These are the 3D crystalographic group which truly corresponds to the 17 two dimensional crystalographic group. This is all explained in details in the literature and the papers mentioned in the previous communication. The connection between Heterotic string theory and the 219 crystalographic group is truly remarkable. As far as I know it is Mohamed El Naschie who drew attention to this fundamental fact for the first time. Before I finish remind me to tell you about two missed opportunities. The first is connected to Nobel laureate Gerard ‘tHooft and the second is connected to Nobel laureate Steve Weinberg. It is not only an anecdote I will quote paragraph and verse hoping this will at least make you trust E-infinity a little because unless a certain amount of trust is assumed at the beginning, you cannot made headway easily.

Let me explain the last two lines in come details. When you explain Einstein’s special theory of relativity, what do you say? You simply say that you no longer think of our space as being 3 plus 1 space and time but as a fused four dimensional spacetime. You would also say that the simultaneousity is not possible because every point has four different coordinates in this spacetime. Finally you add that the speed of light cannot be exceeded. When you want to be more sophisticated you say that these conditions are not independent of each other as is obvious from the Lawrence transformation which preceded Einstein’s work. To give the impression of historical sophistication one would probably add that Poincare knew all of that long before Einstein and that in his work he spelt out indirectly that E is equal to m multiplied with C squared, where C is the speed of light. The general relativity is much easier to explain because you only say that in the very, very large spacetime is curved. This geometrical curvature is what we perceive as gravity. If you want to be sophisticated you just add that since the speed of light is the maximum speed in spacetime, then gravity’s effect cannot travel between two gravitating masses instantly and must travel at a maximum with the speed of light. We do not notice the curvature because it is noticeable only on very large scales. When you say all that everybody is happy. Why are things different in E-infinity? Why, despite so many explanations do people want to understand in a simple way what this E-infinity is? Here is a simple way. While classical spacetime is smooth and Euclidean at intermediate distance and curved at very large distance it is not smooth and not continuous at very short distance. That is all folks. To model the large scale geometry we use Riemannian geometry. The curvature tensor is the driving force behind Einstein’s equation. Similarly to model quantum spacetime at these very short distances we use fractal geometry in its simplest form. The simplest form of a fractal is a Cantor set. We take infinite numbers of Cantor sets to do the job. How on earth could anyone draw a conclusion from that that Cantorian spacetime is infinite. No it can be finite and have infinite dimensions. Even from elementary school mathematics we know that we can sum an infinite series and find a finite answer. That is the whole point behind fractals. When you hold a piece of fractal in your hand, you are de facto holding infinity in your hand. E-infinity theory is very similar to the no boundary proposal of Hawking. It is all extremely simple. Sometimes I am reminded with the heavy weight lifters who are used to carry this 300 kilos and go to lift something which is very light although it does not look it and in doing so, he hurts himself because he was not expecting it to be so light. It is similar to Sonny Liston when he directed a blow to Muhammad Ali’s head but Ali shuffled sideways and Sonny tore the muscle in his right arm. People are expecting E-infinity to be difficult. That is why they find it difficult. Just relax and have faith. It is far simpler than you think. I will not answer any question unless the concerned person gives me his word of honor that he has read at least one single review paper written by an expert on E-infinity theory. In the next communication I will go into slightly more detail and talk about the missed opportunities of ‘tHooft and Weinberg, two people for whom we have the highest possible regard a scientist can have for another scientist as far as science is concerned.

Anonymous replied on Mar. 27, 2010 @ 14:50 GMT

You wrote in part, "I will not answer any question unless the concerned person gives me his word of honor that he has read at least one single review paper written by an expert on E-infinity theory."

That's like refusing to discuss the ten commandments unless one has read the whole book of Genesis.

A scientific theory isn't a religious tract. If there are apparent contradictions that make the theory incoherent (as is, of course, universally true of religious writings) then one ought to be able preempt those objections rather than appealing to faith. Your theory is coherent, or it isn't. Faith won't save it.


Ray Munroe replied on Mar. 27, 2010 @ 14:53 GMT
Dear E-Infinity 17 and Tom,

Dear E17, thank you for getting back into mathematical details. Yes, I have a stack of El Naschie E-infinity papers, and have read most of them. Unfortunately, I have not read papers by Gerardo Iovane, Leila Marek-Crnjac, or Ji-Haun He.

Tom - You asked what I know about E-Infinity, and I admit that it is limited.

If the Golden Ratio is important to Nature, then how should it express itself? I admit that I was torn between Fibonacci's sequence of integers: 1,1,2,3,5,8,13,21,34,... versus a "Golden Sequence" such as El Naschie's: 4-k,6+k,10,16+k,26+k,42+2k,68+3k,... with k~.18 - which is basically double the Fibonacci Sequence: 2,2,4,6,10,16,26,42,68,... and normalized such that the number 10 is an integer and everything else has a small fractal remainder. Realistically, if Quantum Mechanics admits the Golden Ratio with an equation of the type x^2 - x - 1 = 0, then the number of dimensions becomes quantum mechanical observables. We would probably observe the integers, and not their fractal remainders. Then the questions arise "How far should we trust our formalism involving k? Will we observe k or not?"

I am not a Mathematician. My Doctorate was in High Energy Physics Phenomenology, and I know some Solid State Physics. This is part of why I have teamed up with Lawrence Crowell - his Doctorate was in General Relativity and his Masters was in Mathematics, so his strengths help balance out my weaknesses.

I would love to see a proof of "A 'stable infinity' exists because fractals exist". To our best observational knowledge, the Universe is huge but not infinite. But we need something like a 'stable infinity' to establish a distinction between huge observational numbers, such as Dirac's Large Number of 10^40, versus a true mathematical singularity. Is the core of a Black Hole (or the bare charge on an electron) a true mathematical singularity or a huge number?

I consider E-Infinity to be this maximum 'Exceptional Group' of order 685.3. It is interesting that this is close to the sum of Stein spaces, close to 5 times alpha-bar (I still don't really understand - Why 5?), close to double Klein's Chi(7) or the 10-D laminated lattice Gamma_10, and close to my E12/K12'. Is it all coincidence or is there an underlying theory that most of the scientific community has overlooked that requires these 'coincidences'?

You said "A scale invariant universe admits infinite self similarity of quantum elements". What if infinity becomes a 'stable infinity'? Would we now have a finite number of self similarity of quantum elements? My latest model (which is diverging radically from E-Infinity) seems to have a finite Multiverse. Please read Len Malinowski's ideas at

Have Fun!


Anonymous replied on Mar. 27, 2010 @ 16:23 GMT
Please Ray, read the paper of Huan about fiber wool, it is very essential for understanding E-infinity. In this paper the E-infinity theory was simplified up to the level of sheep, not just for dummies.

Ray Munroe replied on Mar. 27, 2010 @ 17:14 GMT
Dear Anonymous 16:23,

This sounds like a sarcastic comment from Jason. I would prefer it if we can play nice on the playground. I've not read any of Ji-Haun He's papers. I am familiar with the title and abstract of the one on wool. My first reaction is that it sounds silly. If space is 3+fractal dimensional, and time is 1+fractal dimensional, then how could wool display the 4+fractal dimensional property of Spacetime? If they could just measure the 3+fractal nature of Space only, then that would be significant enough. I must say that I am naturally skeptical, but have not read the entire paper to make my mind up for sure. I mentioned his name because he is an active scientist who follows E-Infinity theory. Having more perspectives on the issue might allow us to cut to the truth (or falsehood) easier.

Have Fun!


Jason replied on Mar. 27, 2010 @ 17:19 GMT
Ray, Anonymous 16:23 was neither me nor Said.

Ray Munroe replied on Mar. 27, 2010 @ 19:02 GMT
Dear Jason,

I'm sorry if I wrongly accused you, but how do you know it wasn't Said? Are you that tight with Said? I have seen enough of these 'fractal anaylises' that I wouldn't be surprised if Wool, or Goose Down, (or wrinkles in the Brain's 2-D surface) have a 'fractal nature', but shouldn't the number be closer to 3 dimensions of space, rather than 4-D of spacetime? I'm just thinking out loud - sometimes common sense is fallible, but I normally trust my common sense over obscure mathematics.

Have Fun!

Jason replied on Mar. 27, 2010 @ 22:09 GMT
Ray, I know 16:23 by his writing style, his subject matter, and his posting habits. I do not know his name. He posts on El Naschie Watch so I know his country, city and university by his IP address, and it's nowhere near Said.

If you read 16:23 with a critical eye to idiomatic English you'll see it's not me. Like you, I post under my own name.

I have never met, spoken with, emailed, or communicated with Said in any way. I'd be happy to hear from him though.

E.M. wrote on Mar. 27, 2010 @ 13:19 GMT
Reply to Anonymous comment of March 26:

The comment is an absolute nonsense. El Naschie did not extend the dimension to complex dimension. The commentator is Said who is psychologically disturbed and for all practical reasons a sick man. He thinks his comments are witty and funny and he keeps repeating the same comments since 10 years and gets very depressed that nobody takes notice of them. Said is a hard working chemical engineer with no imagination. I mean scientific imagination. He has a malignant imagination however due to paranoia and schizophrenia. There are of course complex dimensions in mathematics. Mohamed does not use them. In fact you could say the work of Mohamed, Nottale and particularly Garnett Ord is a meditation about how to get rid of complex numbers in quantum mechanics. Please note that there are internet hooligans like Said, who write things intentionally to confuse the subject. Thank you.

Jason replied on Mar. 27, 2010 @ 14:12 GMT
Anonymous of March 26 wasn't Said.

Jason replied on Mar. 27, 2010 @ 14:33 GMT
Would the E-infinity representatives please let us know how Mohamed El Naschie is doing after his operation? Is he recovering in Surrey, or in Alexandria? How does he feel?

T H Ray replied on Mar. 28, 2010 @ 09:00 GMT
Hi Ray,

You write, "If the Golden Ratio is important to Nature, then how should it express itself?"

Actually, I don't think it _is_ important to nature, i.e., as a physically real element. The important properties of the ratio--proportion and recursion, as evidenced in the Fibonacci sequence--are shared with the line of positive real integers, R_+. As sufficiently large ratios of Fib_m/Fib_n converge to the limit 1.618 ..., sufficently large ratios of n/n+1 converge to unity. Which convergence do you think is more important?

The properties of an uncompressed arithmetic sequence are far more powerful analytically. Take Euler's equation, E^i*pi = -1. It tells us how to find the origin of the complex plane, so as to identify those fractions of unity on which every real function lives. It gives us a "lever," in a colloquial manner of speaking, by which changes in relations among points--whether mathematical or physical--can be calculated in up to four dimensions, and extended analytically to n-dimension or infinite dimension domains.

Compare this continuous function analysis, incorporating a complete algebra, with the numerology of discrete objects to which one assigns meaning by fiat. There are important technical reasons why field theories reign in physics, which have nothing to do with the intransigence of old-fashioned thinkers; clearly, the field of 2 dimensions is the fundamental playing surface on which we measure and experience.

That nature exhibits patterns of the Fibonacci sequence (leaf growth, sunflower seed arrangements, etc.) does not of itself imply that the patterns are discretely encoded in fundamental physics. Rather, we might interpret these artifacts as discrete 1-dimensional views of n-dimension origin--which makes far more sense to me.

You wrote,

"You (Tom) said 'A scale invariant universe admits infinite self similarity of quantum elements'. What if infinity becomes a 'stable infinity'? Would we now have a finite number of self similarity of quantum elements? My latest model (which is diverging radically from E-Infinity) seems to have a finite Multiverse. Please read Len Malinowski's ideas at

I'll visit the site. I don't know what one means by "stable infinity," however. Infinity is "stable" by definition; i.e., dynamics cease. We can't do analysis on infinity; it's not a number.

By my comment that you cited above, I mean that scale invariance does not obviate multiscale variety (Bar-Yam, et al), such that systems and subsystems that evolve and cooperate at different temporal rates in 4-dimension spacetime can be modeled discretely in an infinite dimension (Hilbert space). If you read my paper, you will see that I suggest continuation of R^n with H^infinity. That's why I like to see if Iovane is on the same track with the paper I mentioned before. I just don't know what "Cantorian spacetime" is, or why one would deem it either physical or theoretically necessary.


Ray Munroe replied on Mar. 28, 2010 @ 15:12 GMT
Dear Tom,

Do I have your e-mail address? Mine is

I'm not ready to put my latest 'fractal' ideas on a blog site, but I would like to share my latest ideas with you for your feedback.

Lawrence Crowell is the more serious mathematician between us (he and I), and he is working on the holographic principle.

The Golden Ratio arises out of an E8 theory, as predicted by Zamolodchikov, and measured by Coldea et al.

Have Fun!


Anonymous replied on Mar. 28, 2010 @ 18:32 GMT
Dear J. A.

In your post you mentioned

"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. ?

Jason wrote on Mar. 27, 2010 @ 17:58 GMT
I think Ji-Huan He needs to team up with these guys:

Gao J, Pan N, Yu WD, Golden mean and fractal dimension of goose down, International Journal of Nonlinear Sciences and Numerical Simulation, 8(2007) 113-116

Gao J, Pan N, Yu WD. A fractal approach to goose down structure, International Journal of Nonlinear Sciences and Numerical Simulation, 7(2006)113-116

Anonymous wrote on Mar. 28, 2010 @ 18:40 GMT
Dear E-infinity

After telling us about Feynman El Naschie conjecture, which is really a remarkable achievement and reflects a deep insight of physics. I hope to continue telling us about other triumphs of El naschie like El naschie local and global coherence and their relations to causality, duality, fractality and reality.

E-Infinity wrote on Mar. 28, 2010 @ 21:19 GMT
E-Infinity Communication no. 18

Some lost opportunities

What we have to say in this communication might seem at the first instance to be a diversion. Believe me it is not and I just ask you to bear with me a little. I will give two examples where E-Infinity could have been of a great help but it was not utilized and not even considered. We are all no matter how liberal and open minded we think of ourselves subject to prejudice which is deep rooted. Try as much as we want, we cannot escape from two things: The noise of our upbringing and the noise in our brain. Nobody is saved from this “condition humane, to use a term of John Paul Sartre. The two examples we will give are related to the work of two towering figures of the 20th century theoretical physics who are still with us and are still working and contributing vigorously to the literature. The two are Nobel Laureates Steven Weinberg and Nobel Laureate Gerard ‘tHooft. Let me start with a much simpler example of Weinberg. I don’t think there is a single person who has anything to do with theoretical physics who wouldn’t know the great man Steven Weinberg who has written the Definitive Treatise on Quantum Field Theory in three volumes published by Cambridge Press. In addition Steven is a great intellectual personality and his influence goes far beyond physics. For instance in his book facing up he presented in a courageous and logical way the point view of Zionism. This is of course a ticklish issue particularly nowadays and with regards to the Middle East and the rise of the Muslim religion in political form. But Weinberg’s Zionism has an undeniable human and logical face. He is right to warn from the rise of any religious discrimination. He is also right to warn from repetition of the holocaust in any form or guise. Some years ago I was told that the great man was invited to a Conference dedicated to transfinite physics. Weinberg did not hear this expression before. He declined the invitation politely being a responsible and courteous person. What a pity that he wasn’t there. Gaining such mega brain to transfinite physics would have completed the revolution which started with Richard Feynman and continued with the work of Garnett Ord, Laurent Nottale , Mohamed El Naschie, Goldfain and dozens of other scientists including Sidharth, Svotzel, Otto Rossler and yes Renate Loll, Jan Ambjorn and of course Fay Dawker in England who followed a slightly different line initiated by David Finkelstein in America and Heinrich Saller in Germany. Let me be now specific. Consider volume 3 of Steven Weinberg’s book on quantum field theory. Volume 3 is dedicated to super symmetry and the book was published by Cambridge in the year 2000. On page 188 to 192 of the book, Weinberg considers super symmetric unification of the strong and electro weak. He calculates the inv unification coupling constant and finds it by virtue of equation (28.219) to be 1 divided by 17.5. In other words the inverse coupling constant of unification is simply 17.5. Now to us working in E-Infinity we recognize immediately this result as wrong. We do not need to make many calculations to realize that somewhere a misfortune and probably trivial computational error was introduced to Weinberg’s analysis. Let me explain why: First, if you are dealing with super symmetric unification, then you are implying gravitational force whether it is explicit or not. Consequently, Weinberg’s analysis is not simply a grand unification but complete unification of all fundamental forces namely electro magnetism, weak force, strong force and gravity. Now we know for sure that the exact value approximated to the nearest integer of the inverse coupling in such case must be 26. The 17 and half is too far for 26 to be even remotely correct. For instance one of the past students of Weinberg and a leading string theoretician and a colleague of Weinberg in the meantime is Joseph Polchinski. In volume 2 of his book String Theory, he calculates the same value and comes to the result that the inverse unification coupling constant must be something near to 25. In fact on page 347 of Polchinksi’s said book, two values are given for the unification by virtue of equation (18.312). The first value is the unification energy of about 10 to the power of 16 Gev. The second value is the inverse unification of 25. Of course Polchinski says it is for grand unification. However and as we reasoned earlier since super symmetry is involved, it is for complete unification including gravity. Now how did we notice so quickly. The reason is that we have at our disposal, a set of very simple principles and even simpler sets of equations which leads us directly to the correct result. In detail we should say the following: We know the exact theoretical value of the four fundamental couplings of the electro weak theory which we need to reconstruct the exact theoretical value of the inverse electromagnetic fine structure constant namely 137.082039325. The value needed for that is Alpha bar 1 equal to 60, alpha bar 2 equal 30 and alpha bar 3 equal 9. In addition, we have the Planck coupling 1. Using the well known reconstruction of E-Infinity we obtain 137.082039325. As anticipated by E-Infinity theory the exact theoretical value 60, 30, and 9 are extremely close to the nearest integer approximation to the experimental value found in the literature. It is a very elementary business to find by averaging a value for the unification inverse constant. You simply take the geometrical mean of the 3 said values. In other words you take the third root of the multiplication of 60, 30 and 9 + 10. You could of course take 9 instead of 10. If you take the 9 you get 25.3 as an approximation. If you take the 10 you get 26.2 as an approximation. An E-Infinity exact analysis will give you of course the exact transfinite value namely 26.18033989. This is nothing but the inverse golden mean to the power of 2 and taken 10 times. It is interesting to note that the value of approximately 17 refers only to partial unification. This partial unification is easily obtained by averaging. You just take the square root of 30 multiplied by 10 and get 17.3. This is unification of strong force with electro weak alone without considering electromagnetism. You see how easily we can do calculations because the golden mean binary system makes cumbersome computations elementary. But this is also not all. We have conceptual simplicity. We know the building blocks of spacetime. They are the random Cantor set of the golden mean Hausdorff dimension. The great Dutch scientist Nobel Laureate Gerard ‘tHooft made the search for the building blocks of Nature and the title of his beautiful popular book: In search of the ultimate building blocks published by Cambridge University Press 1997. That brings us to the next example of a missed opportunity. In his book on page 2 in figure 1, Gerardus ‘tHooft plays with a wonderful idea namely making smaller and smaller kites from a sheet of paper. Miraculously and as if an invisible hand is moving ‘tHooft’s hand, he designed in figure 1 a logarithmic spiral connected to the golden mean without saying so. For practical considerations, which are totally justified, ‘tHooft stopped before making the ultimate theoretical conclusion that he is reaching an element of a wild topology with a Cantor set ramification which harbors the golden mean. Then on page 174 ‘tHooft finds at long last a unification theory which he could praise since he does not like string theory. This theory not surprisingly is Loop Quantum Mechanics of Lee Smolin and Rovelli. ‘tHooft writes “In this theory the only thing relevant is the number and kind of knots linking the loops………..Accidentally Knot Theory is one of the most difficult branches of modern mathematics”. In E-Infinity we beg to differ profoundly. It is a prejudice to think knot theory is difficult. Knot theory is simple. You can do experimental with the rope and nothing more. Most of the knots are in 3D and they become unknots in 4. There is of course more complex knots in 4 which become unknot in 5. Mohamed El Nastier used Knot Theory skillfully to point a connection between knots, Feigenbaum scenario and ramification at a Cantor set. In one of his very readable papers titled: Fuzzy muti-instanton knots in the fabric of space-time and Dirac’s vacuum fluctuation, El Naschie discussed ‘tHooft’s work in detail and points out how he can obtain ‘tHooft instanton as a volume of a symmetry group. This is a trivial consequence of E-Infinity theory. You see the special orthogonal group SO3 has a volume equal to 8 Pie square. Mohamed El Naschie gave the exact value in transfinite form as well as many other interesting points. You see this way, the instanton becomes more physical as a knot which has volume and becomes nearer to a particle like state or a collection of 16 particle like states. The schism between string theory calculation of the 8064 and the holographic calculation of the same disappear. In a certain way, it was ‘tHooft who pointed out to Mohamed El Naschie that he has a new theory. It was however a lost opportunity to combine forces and pull in the same direction rather than sit on the fence and have to bear what Shakespeare called: the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune. However at E-Infinity we are ready to follow Shakespeare as well. We will take arms against a sea of trouble and by opposing we will end them. And it is nobler in the heart to suffer.

Ray Munroe replied on Mar. 28, 2010 @ 22:05 GMT
Dear E-Infinity #18,

I have read an interesting paper by Ayman Elokaby about this subject. I was so interested that I ordered one of his referenced books only to find that the reference was not accurate (interesting book, nonetheless - it had nothing to do with that particular subject).

If you know me, you should know that I am very interested in GUT. My thesis partially involved evolving the Supersymmetric running couplings up to GUT.

You are using an inverse coupling near 26, and I understand the significance within E-Infinity theory. I also worry that your lower-energy solution is 10 dimensional, not 11 (M-Theory) or 12 (my ideas and/or F-Theory).

Lawrence Crowell and I are working on TOE models. Lawrence thinks there are 27 dimensions and I think there are about 28. If we assume equipartition of states at the GUT/TOE (if there are not geometrically-conserved quantum numbers and/or structures to prevent this), then the inverse coupling should be about 28 in my opinion.

I have not challenged either the Weinberg or Elokaby result because I am still formulating this model. You should know that I have the utmost respect for Weinberg - he and Prigogine were both at the U. of Texas while I was a grad student there in the 1980's.

Have Fun!


p.s. - The Elokaby paper was called "Exceptional Lie Groups, E-infinity Theory and Higgs Boson". I don't have a journal reference. On page 8, he referred to an extended Coxeter graph and reference [28] which is Jurgen Jost, Compact Riemanian surfaces, Springer-Verlag, New York ISBN 3-540-43299-X, 2002.

This was a good mathematical reference book, but had nothing to do with extended Dynkin diagrams. I would recommend the website:

Jason wrote on Mar. 28, 2010 @ 22:07 GMT
On this lazy Sunday afternoon we have three new posts up on El Naschie Watch.

* Mohamed El Naschie on Facebook

* Mohamed El Naschie by Winter Sonata Egypt Love (video)

* This is not normal behavior

Anonymous wrote on Mar. 29, 2010 @ 07:18 GMT
Dear E-infinity,

The term great man when it is used should refers, undoubtedly, to the great man El naschie. So it is better to use this term in a consistent way, and not to confuse the great man with other non great ones.

Jason replied on Mar. 29, 2010 @ 08:43 GMT


Anonymous wrote on Mar. 29, 2010 @ 19:58 GMT
The future generations would remember us as the golden era of physics and mathematics. In fact, golden in all aspects of knowledge. It was more than enough to have the great man (El naschie) bridging the second and third Melina.

Also would remembered us that we lost the golden chance with experimenting with ropes with knots and instead spending billions of Euros on LHC experiment on CERN.

How many opportunities have been lost without using those ropes with knots.

Ray Munroe replied on Mar. 29, 2010 @ 20:38 GMT
Dear Anonymous,

Regardless of how good we think our theories and rope models are, we still have to perform the experiments. In America, we are working our way through "March Madness" with the College Basketball Championship. If we had 100% faith in our brackets (theories and models), we wouldn't have to play the games. But what fun would that be? I doubt that many people picked Butler to be in the Final Four.

Are you an El Naschie fan or not? I can't tell if you are really serious or really sarcastic.

Have Fun!


Jason replied on Mar. 30, 2010 @ 01:30 GMT
Ray, he's being sarcastic. In some paper El Naschie attached great theoretical importance to the fact that ropes are shortened by tying knots in them.

Ray Munroe replied on Mar. 30, 2010 @ 12:59 GMT
Hi Jason,

That was my gut reaction. I have read at least one of those papers with knots. Maybe I'm slow, but I didn't understand the relevance of knots. Many of El Naschie's papers seem like 'Weekend projects' in that he gets a piece of an idea and starts to develop it, but never quite finishes. E-Infinity has other aspects that may be more relevant than knots.

Have Fun!


E-Infinity wrote on Mar. 31, 2010 @ 11:24 GMT
An E-Infinity Response

This is not part of the scientific discussion nor the scientific communication which a dedicated member of our group has been writing for you free of charge and free of back thoughts. Exactly 18 communications in all. Instead we are just responding as far as humanly possible within these blogs to some comments which are intentionally or unintentionally completely off target. It could not be included in an advanced discussion between mature scientists.

Over the weekend scientists are not loaded with administrative work and they are relaxed. They don’t have to hassle and run after funding from here or there. There is nothing wrong about having deep thoughts over the weekend. Whether El Naschie’s papers have been written over the weekend, in an oasis in the desert or the casino of Monte Carlo has nothing to do with science nor should be subject to discussion. Whether he is a great man or not is not part of the discussion. In fact I will be hard pressed if we have now to discuss what a great man is. Those who are writing these cheap comments and even cheaper and more stupid jokes, let me tell you could not be shortlisted in any classification of great men. Even if we are talking about this very limited activity with very little practical value at the moment which we call High Energy Physics and unification, I would respect Mr. Anonymous a little bit more if he would have the decency to choose a name more specific. God forbid I am not asking him to give his real name. But he could be at least more consistent like Jason. Knot theory in high energy physics and experimentation with ropes is not the invention of Mohamed El Naschie. It is an old theory in mathematics. It came to prominence in high energy physics after V. Johns [sic. Vaughan Jones] discovered the connection to statistical mechanics. There are fascinating analogies. There are even more fascinating analogies between analogies. It was used intensively in high energy physics by Lee Smolin and his group and not El Naschie. Gerard ‘tHooft who is one of the main opponents of string theory is the one who singled out the use of knot theory in high energy physics via loop quantum gravity as significant. It is impossible to consider the attack on E-Infinity theory and the personal attack against Mohamed El Naschie as anything scientific. It is not related to Egyptian physics or Muslim physics or Arab physics. It is related to Egyptian phobia, Muslim phobia and Arab phobia. It is also related to jealousy and prejudice as well as to a certain article published 2008 in Scientific American. You can do whatever you like but you cannot rewrite history.

Ray Munroe replied on Mar. 31, 2010 @ 13:49 GMT
Dear E-Infinity,

My apologies. I am not consumed by Mulim phobia. I would hope that we can all get along and discuss interesting Physics. If you visited me in my hometown, I would treat you as an honored guest, regardless of your race, religion, culture, language, etc. Yes, I have heard of rope analogies prior to El Naschie - sorry, but I haven't been able to make much sense out of any of it. I guess that is my personal shortcoming. Quite frankly, I think String theory may be more braney than stringy.

I have a regular job. Often, the weekends are my best opportunity to develop new ideas. But an idea cannot be fully developed in one weekend - we should dedicate however many weekends we need to finish the project appropriately.

Have Fun!


T H Ray replied on Mar. 31, 2010 @ 15:02 GMT

I agree that personal comments and character assassinations have no place here.

And I hope you agree that direct answers to straightforward questions do have a place here. Such as:

How does one derive a spacetime matrix from a 1-dimensional set? What physical principle(s) endows a Cantor set with the attributes of a spacetime?

Surely you recognize that if you are going to present "Cantorian spacetime" as a physically real object, it has to have a coherent model? If such a model exists, one would be able to cite it (cf. Minkowski space for general relativity), without directing one to 18 blog posts or k number of papers.


Anonymous wrote on Mar. 31, 2010 @ 14:03 GMT
Dear E-infinity

After telling us about Feynman El Naschie conjecture, which is really a remarkable achievement and reflects a deep insight into physics. I hope to continue telling us about other triumphs of El naschie like El naschie local and global coherence and their relations to causality, duality, fractality and reality.

It would be better to explain the ontological basis of E-infinity through its topological perspective. The idea of weird topology is the backbone of E-infinity leading to weird results that seems very natural in E-infinity context. The transition from classical traditions of physics (here I mean classical and quantum) to E-infinity paradise is a paradigm shift and it could many centuries for the ideas to be familiar and understood. In fact we reached the extreme boundary of knowledge without being matured enough, except the great man with his brave soul and his godself holding the torch to illuminate our route for knowledge through darkness of ignorance.

We are just tiny fractal of very large fate fractal, to be precise we are just remnant of fractal dust.

T H Ray replied on Mar. 31, 2010 @ 18:33 GMT
E-Infinity & all:

I’ve been trying to understand this controversy between the E-Infinity group and the group that includes Renate Loll out of Germany. I hunted down and read the often-cited 2008 Scientific American article (July, “The Self Organizing Quantum Universe”) that I understand some have accused Prof. Loll of plagiarizing from El Naschie’s work. What am I missing here? – where is the evidence of plagiarism?

I have read in one or more of these 18 blog posts from E-Infinity about “spacetime fluctuations,” which I have to assume mean fluctuations of “Cantorian spacetime.” But that’s not what Loll is writing about. Hers are quantum fluctuations, a theoretically well understood phenomenon of vacuum energy, i.e., the energy of space alone, not a spacetime. Because at the small scale, quantum mechanics is non-relativistic, no time is involved; however, such fluctuations require 2 dimensions of space. Quantum theory does not allow space collapsed to a point.

Now I get it, that points of the Cantor set are bigger than points of an ordinary line (and so, not collapsed), but I do not get how this fact imparts an extra dimension of time to a set which is intrinsically 1-dimensional, though compact. How does the El Naschie group get two dimensions from one? Loll’s (et al) theory assumes 2 dimensions, acquiring another dimension of time by what she describes as a “stir fry” of self organization among a complex of spatial volumes of unknown structure (or even structureless), but too small to be measured by conventional integer dimensions. Yes, fractals.

Does the E-Infinity group have this or another derivation for “Cantorian spacetime?” Loll only gives the Cantor set (as well as the Sierpinski gasket and Menger sponge) as examples of fractal shapes; she doesn’t assign causality to them.

“ … the universe must encode what physicists call causality. Causality means that empty spacetime has a structure that allows us to distinguish unambiguously between cause and effect.” (I note that in my opinion she has abused the word “spacetime” here—space _does_have a structure if it includes a time metric; spacetime is itself a structure).

So you think I’m defending Loll, et al? – surprise – wrong! I disagree with her thesis.

I disagree with it for the same reason that I gave you for disagreeing with yours: scale dependence. My model is time dependent.

Although I also think that complex system self-organization is the key to the origin of the universe, I support scale invariance; i.e., field theory. Before Loll can move forward with her idea, she has to (as she does in the article) dismiss Euclidean gravity (implying continuous spacetime), and along with it, Hawking-Hartle imaginary time. Her computer models just didn’t compute.

If Einstein, Hawking and I are right, though, space is more or less well behaved all the way from nothing to something and we get time (including imaginary, or complex, time) in a physically causative way as a result of feedback effects among self organized structures in a field matrix.

Anyway, I have no axe to grind. I just want to know what’s objectively real.

Hey—by the way— Loll says, “We are now in the process of probing even finer scales. One possibility is that the universe becomes self similar and looks the same on all scales below a certain threshold. If so, spacetime does not consist of strings or atoms of spacetime, but a region of infinite boredom: the structure found just below the threshold will simply repeat itself on every smaller scale, ad infinitum.”

In a well behaved universe, that’s not a possibility; it’s a certainty. As I said in a 2006 conference paper,

“. . . the net effect of random n-dimensional motion will appear +1 positive, backward or forward. SIGMA_d/3 = 1 is precisely the observational consequence we should expect when length 1 is preserved on a sphere of radius 1 even when we cannot be sure of the status of the metric diameter, the true state vector, until we measure the result. (insert quantum unitarity eqn., bracket/psi/psi/bracket = 1) The unitary measurement is local. That makes quantum mechanics, from a theoretical viewpoint, profoundly boring. That is, SIGMA_d/3 – 1 = 0.”

The equations require some explanation that I won’t get into here. Point is – boring is good sometimes. :-)


Ray Munroe replied on Mar. 31, 2010 @ 19:22 GMT
Dear Tom,

You make good points and ask good questions. Lawrence hasn't accepted my 'fractal' ideas. I could back off of that claim and still make sense of my models. I am finishing up inventory (and the end of my Fiscal Year) today. Soon, I should be able to get back to physics and see if there are answers to your questions.

Have you read Len Malinowski's ideas at

I would like to hear your opinion.

Have Fun!


Jason wrote on Apr. 1, 2010 @ 00:38 GMT
E-Infinity wrote on Mar. 31, 2010 @ 11:24 GMT:

"It is impossible to consider the attack on E-Infinity theory and the personal attack against Mohamed El Naschie as anything scientific. It is not related to Egyptian physics or Muslim physics or Arab physics. It is related to Egyptian phobia, Muslim phobia and Arab phobia. It is also related to jealousy and prejudice as well as to a certain article published 2008 in Scientific American."

I have responded on El Naschie Watch in a post called "Brotherhood: Criticizing El Naschie is racist".


Anonymous wrote on Apr. 1, 2010 @ 14:15 GMT
Dear E-infinity

After telling us about Feynman El Naschie conjecture, which is really a remarkable achievement and reflects a deep insight into physics. I hope to continue telling us about other triumphs of El naschie like El naschie local and global coherence and their relations to causality, duality, fractality and reality.

It would be better to explain the ontological basis of E-infinity through its topological perspective. The idea of weird topology is the backbone of E-infinity leading to weird results that seems very natural in E-infinity context. The transition from classical traditions of physics (here I mean classical and quantum) to E-infinity paradise is a paradigm shift and it could last many centuries for the ideas to be familiar and understood. In fact we reached the extreme boundary of knowledge without being matured enough, except the great man with his brave soul and his goodself holding the torch to illuminate our route for knowledge through darkness of ignorance.

"We are just a tiny fractal of very large fat fractal, to be precise we are just remnant of fractal dust."


"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)

E-Infinity wrote on Apr. 2, 2010 @ 10:08 GMT
E-Infinity 19

Part 2 of Communication No. 17

Not only Confucius is advising restraint when faced with the awesome power of irrational hatred or the poisonous device of twisting facts. Aristotle finds no way to face the artificial wit of those who have nothing in their heads apart of comic strips and slapsticks except to fortify yourself in continuing serious discussion. That is what we will do here.

There is nothing called weird topology. Of course you can call it what you want but there is no such expression in use. The correct expression is wild topology. The only person who could be very upset about that in a professional way that is must be John Baez. In his n-Category café he made a meal out of wild topology only to find that he is of course wrong. That is what happened to you when you spend too much in cracking jokes, writing silly articles with ha-ha-ha instead of reading seriously to expand your horizon. So many people calling themselves anonymous spend unreasonable amount of time on worthless blogs achieving nothing except maybe getting rid of their internal frustrations with themselves. John Baez of Riverside University proclaimed loudly that there is no 8 exceptional Lie group. Of course he was wrong and his victim was right. We have E8 with 248 generators. Then we have E7 with 133 and then we have E6 with 78. That is not where it stops. Because most people know F4 with 52 and G2 with 14. But these last two are not E line. The correct E5 is somewhat surprisingly SO(10) with 45 generators. Then we have E4 and this is a counterpart of SO(10) namely, SU5 with 24 generators and you can go on that way until you exhaust the E Line. The sum was found by El Naschie to be 548 to the nearest integer. Next blunder of John Baez was regarding 2 and 3 Stein spaces. He never heard of them. What a blog master does not know about does not exist by definition. It is replaced systematically by silly jokes and ha-ha-ha. That is what Charlie Chaplin would call modern times, or theoretical physics a la blogs with café au lait. We could go on indefinitely like that but this will violate the rules laid down by Prof. Mohamed El Naschie about refraining from personal remarks and jokes that have nothing to do with science. Wild topology is a very important part of general topology. It is connected also to knot theory. The Russian literature is abounding with such examples. In particular, a Great Russian mathematician living in France made this connection and that is where Mohamed El Naschie learned his stuff about the connection between knot theory and cantor sets. He added a trick to that which he learned from Nicholas Hoff. Do not ask me who is Nicholas Hoff? However I know from Mohamed El Naschie that he is one of his teachers. He used to be the Head of Aeronautical and Astro-nautical Department in USA. When faced with big nonlinear problems, Hoff chopped the thing into two parts. He ignored the nonlinear terms and solved the linear part. That is mathematically acceptable. But then he did something unconventional based on intuition. He chops the linear part and somehow regards only the nonlinear end state. That is a bit unusual to say the least. It is unusual for pure mathematicians although I am not one. Hoff did not carry the ballast and regarded only in state. When he reached the top with a ladder, he kicked the ladder and onlookers wondered how he reached the top. Mohamed El Naschie did not follow the intricate knot doubling of an entanglement. He took only the end state. He took the limit set. This limit set is the Cantor set. Something similar was done though not quantitatively by Tim Palmer. Before them something similar was done by Michael Berry. People working in nonlinear dynamics have an engineering sense. This is a world apart from the algebraic computational approach of a great man like Nobel Laureate Gerard ‘tHooft. There is no doubt of the admiration of Mohamed El Naschie to Gerard ‘tHooft but the latter would be the first to acknowledge that a Nobel Prize is not a passé partout. It is a great pity that this great man hasn’t fully taken in the fact that a random cantor set has a golden mean Hausdorff dimension and that a random cantor set is the end state and by duality it is the very very beginning. As such you are started with a golden mean binary system. You have now a chance to solve things with unheard of simplicity similar to what John Wheeler has always proclaimed. At such level it is absolutely misguided to take the theories of Newton or even Einstein as a guiding light. It is totally wrong at this level to differentiate between physics and maths. It is completely naïve to think that there is really a distinction between reality as we think we know it and ir-reality whatever we mean by this word in our so called real world where our labs exist and measurements are taken. There are those religious fundamentalists. We regard them as fatal and misguided apart from being non scientific. But there are equally inclined fundamentalists who think that everything is only measurable in the laboratory. These things must be expressed in lengthy complicated equations. We call them scientific fundamentalists. They are just as misguided. Dawker continuous onslaught using political means on religion and anything resembling it is but one symptom of this narrow minded fundamentalism. One question these fundamentalists never ask themselves: why are they so fanatic about denying anything they don’t see including God, whatever this is? A fast more rational way is to analyze the brains of these people as well as the brains of the oppositely inclined people to find what all the fuss is about. A look into the mirror, a chat with a beautiful woman, or reminiscing about past time may help fundamentalists to know the real reason for why they are insisting on whatever they are insisting on particularly when we could not know the answer. E-Infinity starts where George Cantor started. It will be surprising that those who believe in chairs and tables as chairs and tables and we jolly good will build some could swallow E-Infinity immediately. But I think I may be wrong here. If you really understand fractals, and if you really did not just learn it by heart from a text book because others have accepted it, then you will understand E-Infinity. The wonder of E-Infinity is the wonder of fractals and the empty set. Gerard ‘tHooft once said: “I understand what negative dimension is, it is a Grassmanian variable”. That is fine but it is not fundamental. The fundamental thing is to say a negative dimension is the dimension of the empty set. In fact the empty sets. All empty sets are fractal like. The totally empty set is the incarnation of nothingness. For traditional physicists with or without the highest decorations, this is a difficult part to swallow. Tim Palmer understood part of the dilemma. He put it in the most eloquent way we know of. Far more eloquent than anything which Ord, Nottale or Mohamed have written. It is eloquent because it is short, sweet and simple. He said quantum mechanics is blind to fractals. This is the main problem. That is why wild topology is important. At this level philosophy is not decoration. At this level philosophy is part and parcel of the physical shebang.

What I wanted to clarify in this communication was initially the question of unification, Weyl scaling and the rest. Inevitably diversion took place. We have to stop and start again in another communication. I will call it if I am the one to write it: an equation searching for a Lagrangian. Or was it six characters searching for an author. If Barandello is correct then they have to be six equations searching again for a Lagrangian. For the time being, I bid you goodbye for I have to take the plane or was it the train to San Fernando. A last minute note, you need some literature for wild topology. I cannot recommend strongly enough the classical book of John Hocking and Gail Young “Topology.” It is republished in Dover, copyright 1961. Another Russian book on set theory is by N.J. Wilenkin. It is called Set theory for Entertainment. Finally there is a marvelous book by Christian Beck, an English Professor of Physics at Queen Mary College called: Spatio-Temporal Chaos and Vacuum Fluctuations of Quantized Fields. It is published in World Scientific, copyright 2002. Beck reproduced everything that Mohamed El Naschie has found but using a computer. The work is recommended to anyone who is deluded to think that El Naschie’s work is numerology. Beck calculated the possibility that this is numerology and found that the possibility is 10 to the power of minus 38.

Goodbye for now but not for long.

Ray Munroe replied on Apr. 2, 2010 @ 14:23 GMT
Dear Friends,

Steve said "Please stop you wars between you, it is a parameter which decreases the evolution and its speed. Be complementary and you shall be more happy". His English isn't perfect, but I agree. We may disagreee in our approaches, but our goals of Truth, Knowledge and Beauty are very similar.

Beck's number of 10^(-38) is interesting. It looks like the inverse of Dirac's Large Number and comes back to my question "Does a metastable infinity (of Dirac's Large Number 10^40) exist because fractals exist?"

Have Fun!


Anonymous wrote on Apr. 2, 2010 @ 16:38 GMT
Dear E-infinity

I do appreciate telling us about El naschie's local and global coherence.

How these coherence is intimately connected to the idea of negative dimension and VAK conjecture. This coherence could help in explaining the non-Guassinty deviation which has been observed negative binomial state. The same results recently popped up again in Helmoholtz institute experiment.

In fact the empty set could be assigned negative dimension, by empty set you can generate all integer numbers through a recursive power set construction. The idea of random cantor set of golden and silver dimension is deeply rooted in our experience, even brain reveal strange behavior when these words (Gold and Silver) are mentioned.

Dr. Cosmic Ray replied on Apr. 2, 2010 @ 16:47 GMT
Helmoholtz - Helm Holtz, Helm Holz ...

Is the name that difficult to spel [sic spell]?

Anonymous wrote on Apr. 2, 2010 @ 16:48 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 sucha 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

naschie dedicates this article to Gerardus tHooft (Nobel prize 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


tbad.html).The content of this page was 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!).

Ray Munroe replied on Apr. 2, 2010 @ 20:45 GMT
Dear Anonymous,

You said "The great man El naschie gave a new miraculous explanation for confinement. But unfortunately the great man doesn't know enough ..."

Please play nice on the playground. If we are going to be honest about QCD, we should admit that many QCD errors in the Standard Model are ~10%. If this degree of precision was acceptable in QED, then setting alpha-bar equal to 137.082 039 325 would be perfectly fine. We are all committed to paradigms - whether we admit it or not.

Have Fun!


Jason replied on Apr. 3, 2010 @ 12:29 GMT
Ray, Your "Please play nice on the playground" seems like a misunderstanding. Saying El Naschie or anyone else doesn't know much math or physics may be a correct or incorrect assessment of the person, but it isn't automatically an insult. Real physicists and mathematicians know that El Naschie, who calls himself a professor but isn't one, is a clueless photoshopping numerologist fake who had to found his own vanity journal to get his tripe published. The E-infinity Brotherhood who think highly of El Naschie is comprised of people whose primary expertise is in subjects like these:

*history of science




*high school math

*religion and philosophy

*hotel management

*structural engineering (the Great Man himself)

These are fine and worthy subjects, but it cannot be said these people know much math or physics. That's not an insult, it's an unavoidable observation.

Ray Munroe replied on Apr. 3, 2010 @ 13:55 GMT
Dear Jason,

Please play nice on the playground. This is a physics blog. There is no need to attack people's credentials. I am more than "just a physicist", and I think that El Naschie is more than "just an engineer". Often it is difficult to pigeon-hole intelligent people into "just a whatever...". I have spent about half of my life involved in Physics, and about half of my life in Business. I wrote a book on Physics - I had to get those ideas out of my system. I don't hold an MBA degree, but I have had one-on-one training that is more-or-less the equivalent, and I have had enough personal experience that I could write a business-related book if I was so inclined.

I learned the Standard Model in grad school. One of my Professors had a significant part in developing parton distribution functions for the Strong force. I evolved the running couplings of the Strong force up to GUT as part of my thesis. The truth is that our low-energy QCD errors are fairly large because confinement and non-linearity make it a difficult problem. If El Naschie can simplify the problem by applying concepts from "Chaos, Solitons and Fractals", then we should allow him that opportunity. If he gets a few details wrong along the way (because none of us are experts in everything), then someone else can fix those ideas.

Have Fun! Be Nice!

Jason replied on Apr. 3, 2010 @ 19:13 GMT

I haven't attacked your qualifications and I know you have a physics PhD, unlike El Naschie.

You say "There is no need to attack people's credentials."

Yes there is. Lest El Naschie and the Brotherhood be taken seriously. El Naschie damages the scientific reputation of Egypt and the institutions he pretends to belong to.

Moreover, you are being disingenuous: As a businessman who hires people you know perfectly well credentials matter.

Really, Ray, you should be ashamed. El Naschie features a fake pic of himself with Nobelists on the front page of his Web site. He blames George W. Bush for not having a Nobel. Cambridge got him kicked off of arXiv for affiliational arrogation. He blames Mossad for El Naschie Watch. He moans about Cambridge being "90% Jews". He repeatedly cites a nonexistent paper he authored with Nobelist Prigogine. He falsely claims Prigogine nominated El Naschie for a Nobel. Four times. He isn't a professor (not a problem) but he says he is one (a problem). He's a legal bully. His minions have threatened to off me Manson style, and have expressed grave concern that "womenfolk" might visit El Naschie Watch. El Naschie does not "play nice on the playground". What depravity must he stoop to before you stop playing patty-cake with him and his sick cult?

E-Infinity wrote on Apr. 3, 2010 @ 12:37 GMT
Communication No. 20

Miscellaneous comments, some corrections and continuation of Part 3 of Communication No. 17

Let me start with a minor correction. We said that Christian Beck in his famous book linking non linear dynamics to high energy physics: “Spatio-Temporal Chaos and Vacuum Fluctuations of Quantized Fields” has calculated the probability of an element of numerology and found it to be absurdly small. We quoted a number. The correct number is even far absurdly small than our memory had it at the time. The number quoted on page 247 by Beck is ten to the power of minus 60. Let me repeat. This is 1 divided by ten and another 59 zeros beside it. You have to be incorrigible fanatic to talk of any numerology in the work of Beck who worked directly with a computer as well as the work of El Naschie who knowingly or unknowingly was working with the golden mean binary system which can match any computer.

We all know that super string depends crucially on a number well known from number theory namely 496. Is this numerology? Not even the greatest enemy of string theory could make such claim. We know that loop quantum mechanic would not work at all unless we multiply everything with a mysterious numerical factor, the Imerze-barbiro number. I probably spelt the name wrongly but never mind is loop quantum mechanic numerology? I don’t think our Nobel Laureate Gerard ‘tHooft would like that at all, he believes reasonably well in loop quantum mechanic because it does not have extra dimensions. Why? Because extra dimensions cannot be seen. Is this prejudiced? I don’t think he believes it is prejudiced. Forgive me for being confused at this point. Did anybody see an instanton? Did anybody see the unification monopole of Polyakov and ‘tHooft? Don’t get me wrong, I believe they will be found or something similar will be found. However it is clear that beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Funding is a problem. Some say “Cherchez la femme.” In our community it is more the case that we should “cherchez la monnaie”. Continuing in the same vein, what about this quadratic equation which Mohamed El Naschie has given? The equation was expressed in terms of alpha bar. It reads alpha bar square minus 140 alpha bar plus 400 equal zero. It has of course two solutions: the first is alpha bar is 137 plus k0. This is 137.082039325. Note it is the theoretical value of E-Infinity. It is not the experimental value. The second value is 3 minus k0. This is a scaling of one of the dimensions of spacetime. Now take the mass of the proton. According to E-Infinity it has to be alpha bar square divided by 20. That way you get the real experimental value of the proton. Take the experimental value of alpha bar and do the same. You will not get the correct value for the mass of the proton. You will get a good approximation but not the correct value. To understand that, you have to read El Naschie’s paper on the Mass Spectrum. However before this you have to depart from the naïve belief of reality physics and maths. You cannot take Newton nor Einstein as a paradigm in a naïve way. I may come to this point later on when we have the time. For the moment I would like to give a second example. In fact I would like to give many examples to refute the naïve belief of dividing physics from maths in a simplistic way. I said previously that the real negative dimension is the empty set. The best example I know is El Naschie SU(n) hierarchy. I will not give now details but I give it to you as given in the papers of El Naschie. It is minus 1, zero, 3, 8, 63 and then finally 3968. This is not ‘tHooft’s beloved Yang-Mill theory. It is the super Yang-Mill theory. If in any doubt, please see Kaku’s book:”Introduction to superstring and M theory, page 385. El Naschie’s hierarchy just stated is connected to n equal zero 1238 and 63 in the same order. I will explain that later on in detail. I just want to say that those who think this is numerology know nothing about numerology or physics and Beck calculation is a numerical confirmation for that. In fact the work of Renate Loll and Jon Ambjorn lies squarely on the side of El Naschie and Beck. They use with great skill the number crunching efficiency of a computer. El Naschie on the other hand does the same using a number system made extra for that. The Great Russian academician Alexey Stakhov said in his recent book which was acclaimed on the level of a Nobel Prize that missing the use of the golden mean binary system was a disaster and nothing less for the development of mathematical physics. I have made many claims here and I did not give you details. I owe you a few. I will do this as soon as we can piece things together for you. I also promise to show you that the theory presented for quarks confinement using E-Infinity is absolutely correct. We had our doubts initially but now there is no doubt whatsoever. That also will be addressed very soon.

M. Ferguson wrote on Apr. 3, 2010 @ 17:13 GMT
Regrettable as it might be, I have seen this blog. My own impression as well as the convictions of friends and colleagues are that the more you are answering barking dogs or attempting to push them away the more they are encouraged. Nothing offends these creatures than ignoring them. Nothing emboldens them more than insulting them, calling them names or anything of that sort. I like the wisdom of some and I will be answering though indirectly to these internet version of the Gremlins. Mr. Anonymous your work on quarks confinement and asymptotic freedom is not fooling anybody. You have no idea what you are talking about because your comment is the work of several people. First the latent hatred, jealousy and meanness of Said is transpiring through your comments despite the enormous effort spent by John Baez and his crew to appear detached. Some English sentences are not yours. Now and then you insert idiotic English mistakes to hide your collective identity. But these are all technicalities. On the principle level you have no idea what you are talking about. The difficulties in asymptotic freedom and quarks confinement are trivial. It is neither masterly knowledge in physics or mathematics. The whole thing is an error in sign. It should have been minus instead of plus. Yang ‘tHooft found the error. The work of Yang-‘tHooft was according to the far mature ‘tHooft more or less knowingly or unknowingly hijacked. I will not relieve you from agony by giving you the references. However you are implying you know ‘tHooft. If that is true than you know surely that ‘tHooft despises you. In fact you seem to despise yourself or you would have been writing in your name instead of Anonymous. Why don’t you give us your paper on the subject? Why don’t you tell us what ‘tHooft has dedicated to you? What is the relevance that Mohamed El Naschie dedicates his paper to a well known Nobel Laureate in order to make his work visible? Right or wrong it is human to think that way. Mohamed El Naschie is known to be courteous, polite and charming. Gerard ‘tHooft is known to be totally absent minded, not particularly up to the highest standard in etiquettes of all sorts and he is so critical of everything by nature to the extent that he would not accept to be a member in the club which admits him as a member, more or less like Grotchia Marx. Stop fishing in murky water. There is none. There is no place for a creature like you. I would like to confirm a few points which were mentioned by E-Infinity communication 20. Take the Riemann tensor in 9 dimensions. The number of independent components is 540. If we restrict ourselves to something expressed only by gravitons and gravitino, would this mean there are 8 particles missing which will become later on Higgs field? Is it numerology to think like that? Add E8, E7, E6, SO(10), SU(5) to the 12 of the standard model. What do you get? 540 exactly. This was discussed by El Naschie. Do you want to ignore all that, even when numbers are cleverer than the physicist. I don’t care one bit. Mohamed El Naschie is an Engineer. Like Tim Palmer his work on quantum mechanic and high energy physics is not his professional work. That is what is burning in your heart. A hobby painter beats the so-called professional. As far as I am concerned professionals who use the internet to scandalize their colleagues are true professionals. I mean this is true scientific prostitution. You, Mr. Anonymous, are the Head of this scientific brothel. Best regards to your pay masters. What do you call them in your trade? Panter?

Jason replied on Apr. 3, 2010 @ 19:19 GMT
Anonymous of Apr. 2, 2010 @ 16:48 GMT isn't Said Elnashai.

Anonymous wrote on Apr. 4, 2010 @ 05:50 GMT
On the Ninth International Symposium Frontiers of Fundamental and Computational Physics 2008. The great man El naschie had a lecture titled “Average exceptional Lie group hierarchy and high energy physics”, it was a scandalous lecture, the great man was like a clown.

On the top of that the great man claimed to be the director of

King Abdullah Al Saud Institute for Nano & Advanced Technologies as evident from the affiliation mentoined below.


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

Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.

*) Director

Fortunately the lecture was kept, and one can check his lecture on

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 scientists" [Broken link.]

web page for "Supervisory Committee to King Abdullah Institute for Nanotechnology" [Broken link.]

Can the great man explain for us.

In that Symposium the great man was keen to be photographed besides present Nobel winners. As all we know, El naschie is a famous Nobel nominee.

Why the great man was lying about his affiliation, is it the behavior of a respectable humanbeing or any respectable entity.

E-Infinity wrote on Apr. 8, 2010 @ 14:29 GMT
Communication No. 21

The Golden Mean in High Energy Physics before, during and after E-Infinity

We will have to leave it to the philosopher and historian of science to determine the complex history of the golden mean in high energy physics. As far as we are concerned, we feel that Mohamed El Naschie must be accredited with integrating the golden mean in high energy physics in a systematic way and on a grand scale. He did not do that intentionally. It just happened. The golden mean more or less manifested in the computation as fundamental for any minimal consistent and accurate quantum field theory formulation outside the rules of classical quantum field theory. Without any attempt to be historically correct we must draw attention to very important papers where the golden mean manifested itself. I must say that the authors which I am about to mention were initially not traditional mainstream. They are not renegades. They are somewhere in between. They are meantime part of the establishment but it was not always like that. The first is an exceptional Russian mathematician who worked initially in turbulence, A. Polyakov. The second is a superb solid state physicist, mathematician and hobby engineer, Subir Sachdev. If my memory serves me right, although this is slightly on the gossip side, I think Sachdev’s American wife is the daughter or the grandchild of Dwight Eisenhower, the great President of USA and the hero of D-Day in the Second World War. The paper of Polyakov is entitled: Feigenbaum universality in string theory, published in Journal of Theoretical Physics (JETP), vol. 77, No 6/March 2003, pp. 260-365. Polyakov found the period doubling of Feigenbaum in quantum field theory. Please read Mohamed El Naschie’s paper on the connection between the hyperbolic region of period doubling and the Hausdorff dimension of fractal spacetime. A critical value in the hyperbolic region is his famous 4.23606799. When you talk Feigenbaum, you talk golden mean renormalization groups. In fact it was Mitchell Feigenbaum, Otto Rossler, Julio Casati, Boris Cherekov and Itmar Proccaccia who initiated Mohamed El Naschie’s interest in nonlinear dynamics, KAM theorem, period doubling and thus the golden mean threshold. Mohamed El Naschie merely extended that to high energy physics. The second paper by Sachdev was published in Physics Letters B 309, 285(1993), Polylogarithm identities in a conformal field theory in three dimensions. You can find it free of charge published in arXiv:, 25 May 1993. An extremely instructive and neat summary of the application of the golden mean is a nice paper by the very versatile, Slovenian mathematician L. Marek-Crnjac. The paper is titled: The golden mean in the topology of four-manifolds, in conformal field theory, in the mathematical probability theory and in Cantorian space-time, published in Chaos, Solitons & Fractals 28(2006) 1113-1118. A wonderful paper by Professor Christian Beck from Queen Mary University, London and Muhammad Maher from the same department is: Chaotic quantization and the mass spectrum of fermions, published in Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, 37 (2008) 9-15. This paper was refereed and recommended for publication in Chaos, Solitons & Fractals by Professor, Dr. Dr. Werner Martienssen from the University of Frankfurt. In this paper you can see the influence of nonlinear dynamic and cantor sets in modern physics and determining the mass spectrum of elementary particles in a similar but not identical way to E-Infinity. It was not always golden mean from the beginning. El Naschie used initially deterministic fractals. He started initially by using the classical triadic cantor set with the Hausdorff dimension ln2 divided by ln3. You do not get golden mean for deterministic cantor sets. Paradoxically it is randomness which introduced golden mean harmony. You can see that from a paper published in Vistas in Astronomy. The author is Mohamed El Naschie. The title of the paper is: Quantum Mechanics, Cantorian Space-time and the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. This paper dated 1993, vol. 37, pp. 249-252, did not include the golden mean yet. Mohamed El Naschie rediscovered the average Hausdorff dimension of a quantum path. This is equal to 2. It is the individual Hausdorff dimension of a quantum path which is equal to the golden mean. The interplay between 2 and the golden mean produced the approximate value for the Hausdorff dimension of the core of quantum cantorian spacetime which is approximately equal to the exact value. To be specific, it is 2 divided by ln of the inverse golden mean which gives us an approximation to the exact value 4.23606799. There is a nice paper summarizing the application of the golden mean by El Naschie titled: The Golden Mean in Quantum Geometry, Knot Theory and Related Topics, Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, Vol. 10 No. 8 page 1303-1307 (1999). Another paper which seems to have strong influence on groups working in the Parameter Institute in Canada is El Naschie’s Quantum Groups and Hamiltonian Sets on a Nuclear Spacetime Cantorian Manifold, published in Chaos, Solitons and Fractals, vol. 10 no 7, pp. 1251-1256 (1999). The golden mean as such and its connection to E8 became fundamental in the work of Mohamed El Naschie after one of his students, Dr. Ahmed Mahrus from Newcastle, Department of Physics, UK, drew the attention of Mohamed El Naschie to the golden mean binary system. Academician and Nobel Prize nominee Alexei Stakhov expanded this system in a recent magnificent work published by World Scientific entitled: The Mathematics of Harmony. Mohamed El Naschie started his adventure with period doubling and renormalization relatively early. He was at the time Director of Projects and one of the main editors of a prestigious Middle Eastern Journal. Later on he published a paper on the subject titled: Order, Chaos and Generalized Bifurcation. The paper is published in the Journal of Engineering Sciences, King Saud University, vol. 14, no.2 (1988), pp 437-444. I did hear some good news for those who do not have easy access to expensive scientific Journals. I am told that a charity organization did put all the scientific papers of Mohamed El Naschie in a free access blog. I do not know where or when this was done, but those who will search will find it. I hope this will facilitate serious study of E-Infinity. Of course those who prefer other activities will not be deterred from following their natural inclinations. We hope however that the majority will follow their scientific inclination. We hope also this little contribution is helpful and we will be shortly returning with more.

Jason replied on Apr. 8, 2010 @ 16:15 GMT
Dear E-infinity,

You said "I am told that a charity organization did put all the scientific papers of Mohamed El Naschie in a free access blog."

Are you thinking of one of these sites?

They only have a few of El Naschie's papers, I think.

Jason wrote on Apr. 9, 2010 @ 07:42 GMT
Please can E-infinity please explain the relationship between El Naschie's statement on Radio Horytna "I was nominated about 4 times to get the Nobel Prize" and his statement on Elbeet Beetak "The truth is, I have never said that I was nominated for a Nobel prize"?


said el wesekh wrote on Apr. 10, 2010 @ 10:57 GMT
Said ya Salah dah mawke elmi mush mawke el sharmuta betatak. Khalik enta ma banatak el gheir shareeyin ahl el fan we el taaris. Ama el sharmut Jason betaak, fa teadar tehuto fi moakherat amthalak. Etfu aleyk we ala amthalak. Enta akzar gorthuma etwagadet fi masr. Etfarag ala tarikh hayatak el weskh fi:

E-Infinity wrote on Apr. 10, 2010 @ 11:35 GMT
Communication No. 22

Why does the golden mean pop up everywhere in mathematical physics?

A true scientist aiming at scientific truth could not be afflicted by a worst malady other than prejudice. Some notable scientists who have done occasionally excellent work elude themselves in confusing prejudice with scientific skepticism. I am far too skeptical to believe anything easily, you will hear them say. Give him anything new and he will answer immediately: I do not need to read it. I waste my time on big names only. I know before I read that this is no good any case. Too many great people have tried before and failed. Who the hell could be this guy from Rumania to teach me a Caltech man about the quantum or anything at this level? When it comes to the golden mean things could be dozen of times worse. Ignorance is invariably covered up pure arrogance and never ever forget the witty jokes, the hallmark of a hole head. In what follows we would like to give well known elementary evidence that it is absolutely natural for the golden mean to be the foundation of quantum mechanics and high energy physics and much much more. Many of these evidences have been discussed at length by Mohamed El Naschie, Marek-Crnjac and their students. For convenience summary, we recommend a paper titled: A short history of fractal-Cantorian space-time by L. Marek-Crnjac, published in Chaos, Solitons & Fractals 41 (2009) 2697-2705.

1. The golden mean is the solution of a simple quadratic equation with appropriate sign. A quadratic equation is the simplest non linear equation we know of. Only a linear equation is simpler. Einstein said if everything would be linear nothing would affect nothing. Therefore, for things to affect things we need at least a quadratic equation to describe physics of a minimal complexity. The simplest vibrational set fulfilling Einstein’s requirement is a 2 degree of freedom linear oscillator. The characteristic equation for such set when normalizing all constants is a quadratic equation with a golden mean solution. This is discussed at length in a paper by Mohamed El Naschie titled: On a class of general theories for high energy physics, published in Chaos, Solitons & Fractals. 14 (2002) 649-668. The Slovenian mathematician Marek-Crnjac suggested that fusing infinitely many but hierarchical sets of this type leads to E-Infinity theory. The connection to the basic concepts of string theory is evident. It might be interesting for some to note that structural engineers habitually replace complex structures by systems of springs and masses. In some sense this is a finite element realization of a structure. In the same sense and taking a bird’s eye view this is the connection to Regg Calculus. No wonder that Mohamed El Naschie used this method when you remember he is a Structure Engineer and a past student of John Argyres, the inventor of finite elements who used it skillfully in the modern fuselage structure of airplanes at the dawn of the aerospace age.

2. The golden mean is the most irrational number. Its continued fraction expansion involves only unity. Consequently it is the backbone of the KAM theorem. There is no stability in a Hamiltonian system without a rational number. Since the golden mean is the most irrational, it is the threshold of the most stable periodic orbit in a dynamic system. The marriage between KAM and quantum mechanics resulted in Rene Thom’s VAK conjecture which has been re-generalized by El Naschie and used in high energy physics.

3. A random cantor set possesses a Hausdorff dimension equal to the golden mean. Of course there are many cantor sets which are random and have a Hausdorff dimension close to or different from the golden mean. However the most simple and generic random cantor set has the golden mean as a Hausdorff dimension. A wild topology always ramifies at infinity into a set of wild point, equivalent to a random cantor set. Generically this is equal to the golden mean. If you regard the final state and forget about the mechanism leading to it, then you have golden cantor sets geometry at ultra high energy corresponding to the wild topology. The basic mathematical work in this direction was done by an American topologist Alexander. The most famous examples are Alexander Horned spheres and Antoine Collier. Mohamed El Naschie merely carried these ideas to high energy physics and was probably inspired by S. Kaufmann in the U.S.A.

4. The fundamental theory of 4-manifold depends crucially on the Fibonacci and thus the golden mean. This has been considered at length in the corresponding mathematical literature. Many references to this work are given in El Naschie’s papers and elsewhere, for instance Crnjac’s work.

We must stress that the excellent work of T. N. Palmer depends crucially on an understanding of number theory. In fact classical quantum mechanics depends on number theory. You must always remember the trivial fact that without complex numbers, there is no classical quantum mechanics. We think enough for today as my hands are getting heavier and we hope to be back as soon as possible.

E-Infinity wrote on Apr. 11, 2010 @ 12:52 GMT
Communication No. 23

The inverse problem of quantum field theory in E-Infinity theory and symplectic tiling

We mentioned few very good reasons why the golden mean should pop up at so many different places and so unexpectedly in quantum high energy physics. We reasoned that quadratic equation with golden mean roots is the simplest non trivial algebraic equation that there is. We mentioned the maximal irrationality of the golden mean and the role it plays in KAM theorem and the stability of dynamic systems. We alluded to wild topology and its connection to the simplest form of random cantor set which by a well known theorem due to American mathematician Mauldin and his student William will have a golden mean as a Hausdorff dimension. There are far more reasons than what we mentioned. The reasons are sometimes very subtle and none is so subtle and so important than the relation to Penrose Tiling. I remember vividly attending a lecture by Professor El Naschie in the Einstein Institute for Gravitation in the Max Planck Institute near Berlin, Germany. A very imminent and famous German astrophysicist was present when El Naschie was talking about the Penrose Tiling and E-Infinity theory. The imminent German scientist became very agitated and said: “This is all a simple tiling, how could you scale things denying the existence of a natural scale and how could use that for high energy physics”? El Naschie was equally agitated but remained calm. Of course it was El Naschie’s mistake. He thought everyone has seen the wonderful example for non commutative geometry presented in the book of Alain Conne. El Naschie explained to the imminent astrophysicist that of course he should have said Penrose fractal tiling. El Naschie meant that every tile in Penrose Tiling could be tiled again using Penrose tiling and so on ad infinitum. The great German astrophysicist and he was definitely a great astrophysicist was not familiar with fractals. He belonged to a generation which worked decades before Andre Linde, the Russian astrophysicist, moved to America and introduced fractals to the big bang. Talking to Mohamed El Naschie later on, the irony became even bigger. El Naschie learned much about fractal geometry in astrophysics and quantum mechanics from a remark in a paper published in the 60’s by the very same German astrophysicist. The remark concerned the famous paper of Carl Menger which he dedicated to Einstein at his birthday. Many of us and I am not an exception refer to papers without reading them attentively. Let us return to Penrose tiling. Without the golden mean, there is no Penrose tiling but why is it like that? El Naschie gave a naive example which I find very instructive. Being a structural civil engineer, his example comes yet again from engineering. Suppose you are building a wall. You are using bricks. Watch a master mason performing his job. He fits the bricks together. These are the integers in number theory. Now and then he takes a smaller or a larger brick so that things fit a little bit better. These are the rationals. However no matter how clever our master bricklayer is, he will never get a smooth monolithic wall without resorting to mortar. The mortar between the bricks helps to produce a smooth monolithically connected wall. These are the irrationals of number theory. If you take the golden mean 0.6180339 you notice that it is almost equal to half i.e. 0.5 + 0.1180339. It is a rational plus an irrational tail which is easily expressed again in terms of the golden mean. In this case it is simply 1 + k all divided by 10. The k is the famous golden mean to the power of 3 multiplied by 1 minus the golden mean to the power of 3. We met this number frequently when we discussed transfinite corrections. It is this technique of writing things in the most convenient form using the simplest and most efficient binary system that there is which allows E-Infinity to produce exact results with simplicity which is difficult to comprehend when we use the old mentality of algebraic manipulation brute force, patching and approximating at different stages until things become approximately correct but truly ugly and cumbersome to handle.

I am too young to have been together with Heisenberg, Paul Dirac and Neils Bohr at the Tate Gallery in London when they visited it. Mohamed El Naschie told me however the following story which he again heard it from Heisenberg directly. The story is too beautiful not to be true even if it is true and just ingeniously invented by El Naschie to impress us. Paul Dirac loved perfection. When he presented a draft paper to Neils Bohr and the latter made his usual correction, Dirac becomes extremely sad. One day the three mean were in London. Paul suggested taking the opportunity to visit the Tate Gallery. I knew the old location of this gallery because Mohamed El Naschie took me there when I visited him in London. They were standing all in front of a large picture either by Turner or Claude Monet. I cannot remember. Dirac stood silent for a while then he moved forward and pointed to a spot at the bottom of the painting and said in his calm voice:”This point is wrong”. I do not think I can say anymore. That must be one of the best signs of Paul Dirac’s conviction that it must be beautiful or it is not true or correct. If you look to the classical form of the renormalized equation of unification of fundamental action in high energy physics, you realize that it is extremely involved, clumsy and cannot be described as being beautiful. However it is approximately true. To use the same language of Dirac, there is a point there which is wrong. Not so with the same equation which E-Infinity produces. The equation of E-Infinity is perfection per excellence in this case. We will discuss it in detail. But I wanted to introduce the idea first. I know from El Naschie that he traveled to a country in Northern Europe known for its beautiful tulips, in order to introduce his equation to a man whose opinion he values above every other mortal. To make a long story short, the great man told Mohamed El Naschie:”Yes, it is amazingly simple but there are too many things before that. Your equation comes from where? It just comes out of the blue”. I cannot reproduce the sense of disappointment which Mohamed El Naschie felt at this point. I could almost hear what is going in his mind. Of course there are many things before that. I thought you know that I know that. In fact how a great man like you could think that I could not know that. The problem is Mohamed El Naschie knew what the great man knows but the great man did not know what Mohamed El Naschie knows mainly fractals, chaos and complexity theory. You could write any simple equation if you can. If you are clever you can always guess the answer and idealize it. Next you ask yourself: What do I need to have? Normally a Lagrangian in order to get this result. This is the well known inverse problem. El Naschie worked on many problems in the calculus of variations. He knew from his classical engineering work the power of the inverse problem as a method. The inverse problem is always more difficult. For instance, relative to multiplication division is more difficult. Similarly we have many opposed mathematical procedures where the inverse is always more difficult. It is not impossible to find whatever you want when so many clever people have worked so hard to give you a theory which is almost but not completely perfect. Classical quantum field theory is such theory. It is almost but not completely perfect. Those who have studied it carefully will be led to a simple solution of the inverse problem as will be explained later. To be able to complete the job, you have to free yourself of all prejudice and have no hiccups about fractals, transfiniteness and golden means. The result of this effort will be evident from the following equation of E-Infinity theory. In general the equation reads as following: the inverse unification coupling is equal to the following sum: alpha bar 3 plus alpha bar 4 plus the natural logarithm of the ratio of the unification mass or energy divided by a reference mass or energy. This logarithm is multiplied by the factor which has to do with super symmetry. In the classical form this equation is not much different but it is clumsy and filled with numerical factors which a beginner could not make heads or tails of. It takes a long time to familiarize oneself with it. The E-Infinity theory version is by contrast perfect. Let me mention first that the discovery of the Logarithmic scaling decay was a major step in high energy physics. I forgot who discovered it first and I forgot a lot of things about its history which I read once upon a time. I do not remember where I read it but I did. We all would be very grateful for readers of these comments and I mean readers who are only interested in science could draw our attention to this logarithmic law and give us its background and history. That would be very nice indeed and would save us a lot of work to dig in old papers and textbooks. E-Infinity took this logarithmic law and changed it de facto to a golden mean scaling of E-Infinity hierarchy.

In the next communication we will show you these things step by step. We hope also that you will notice that the inverse problem becomes tractable and lead to a simple solution of quarks confinement using E-Infinity modification of the original classical solution. Hopefully without wanting in any sense to sound pompous and give our enemies fuel to burn more wood, let me say that if we in E-Infinity could see so far then it was because we stood on the shoulders of giants. These giants are: Gerard ‘tHooft, David Gross, David Politzer and Frank Wilczek, to mention only a few of the key players in this field.

Ray Munroe replied on Apr. 12, 2010 @ 00:05 GMT
Dear Friends,

As a Particle Physicist who also studied some Solid State Physics, I like 2-D tiling - it reminds me of 3-D lattices and multi-dimensional applications such as the E8 Gosset lattice, and the Simplices of Causal Dynamical Triangulation. Whereas some people (Garrett Lisi's older writings sound like this) envision CDT and/or E8 as occuring in the 4-D of Spacetime, I envision these effects in an unseen Hyperspace. The simplest 4-D simplex is a 5-simplex. Its Petrie polygon is a pentagon, which admits 72-72-36 degree triangles, which admit the Golden Ratio. I'm playing with some crazy Golden Ratio ideas - I don't think my friend Lawrence Crowell agrees with me...

Have Fun!


Martin Klicken replied on Apr. 12, 2010 @ 07:28 GMT
Dear e-infinity, dear Ray,

we put the pieces together slowly and get the big picture.

Everybody should know about your theories, while we figure more and more,

that big parts of your theories have only been understood in the Arabic world until know, which is why we gave the effort of translating the hints of the master himself, the creator of the whole branch of this science in this interview:

To fully understand what's at the core of e-infinity, the western world has to watch closely and try to listen to what Mohamed S. El Naschie says. It is all there, but we can not spare you the thinking that's what you have to do yourself.

The subtitles provided are English, German and we prepare of course French, since some of the most important scientists working at this "paradigm shift" are French.

Now here is the video:

Please don't forget to leave your comment and send it to other scientists who may think they understand the connections, but still may need some finer details.

Martin Klicken replied on Apr. 12, 2010 @ 08:27 GMT
Oh, that should be of course.

Dr. Cosmic Ray replied on Apr. 12, 2010 @ 13:45 GMT
Dear Martin,

I understand that you feel that this interview video reveals flaws in El Naschie's personality, but


FQXi is dedicated to fundamental questions in Physics. El Naschie Watch is dedicated to 'exposing' the other details of El Naschie's life.

Jason replied on Apr. 12, 2010 @ 18:11 GMT
Dr. Cosmic Ray,

There isn't any physics in your complaint to Martin, in the 23 E-Infinity screeds, or anywhere else in the freak show called FQXi-395.

Dr. Cosmic Ray replied on Apr. 13, 2010 @ 12:25 GMT
Dear Jason,

True, there is no physics in these last few comments. However, I have learned a little bit from all of these E-Infinity postings.

I consider myself a maverick, and will not get sucked into anyone's 'cult of personality'. I think there is more to El Naschie's ideas than you see, but his ideas are IMHO slightly defective. Not to worry. I think I can fix these ideas. I have a Doctorate in High Energy Physics that El Naschie doesn't have, but I broke academic connections seven years ago. Most likely, few will take me seriously. But if the truth slaps them in the face, then they might recognize it...

Have Fun!


E-Infinity wrote on Apr. 14, 2010 @ 13:08 GMT

Communication No. 25 (Part 1)

The Fundamental Equation of Unification of E-Infinity Theory as a harmonization of the corresponding renormalization group equation of classical high energy physics.

After considering many fundamental problems in non linear dynamics and its

possible connection to quantum physics, a paper entitled: Complex Dynamic in a 4D Peano-Hilbert Space appeared in Il Nuovo Cimento in 1992. This was a famous journal where Einstein published some of his work but after a short period of stagnation the Journal was re-launched and renamed: The European Journal of Physics. The author of the paper is Mohamed El Naschie and he wrote it during his Cambridge time. It can be found in Vol. 107 B, N. 5 – Maggio 1992 pp.583-594. In this paper Mohamed El Naschie made an explicit connection though in general terms between quantum mechanics and fractals. Sub section 8, page 593 is titled: Quantum mechanics, Dirac’s vacuum and foam space-time. He was not accurate at that time by thinking that Wheeler’s foam space time is a proper fractal. Nevertheless the point was made. In fact he mentioned explicitly that lifting the Menger foam to 4 dimensions leads to something very similar to our space time. He was clearly not yet aware of the fundamental role played by randomness and was still working with a deterministic cantor set. In a paper published at about the same time in the Journal of Franklin Institute, Mohamed El Naschie expanded the idea, discussed in more detail the Menger sponge and expressed his hope that fractal cantorian spacetime can easily resolve all the paradoxes associated with quantum mechanics. Mohamed El Naschie continued his effort until he determined the exact expectation value of the topological and Hausdorff dimension of quantum space time. He perfected the theory mathematically after discovering the relevance of Jones’ Invariant and quantum groups to his work. About 7 years after his the mentioned Nuovo Cimento paper, the mathematical basis and the connection to hyperbolic geometry and KAM theorem became crystal clear. Just as two examples for his work in this period, I may quote the following two papers: 1. Jones’ Invariant, Cantorian Geometry and Quantum Space-time. 2. Quantum Groups and Hamiltonian Sets on a Nuclear Spacetime Cantorian Manifold. Both papers are published in the 1999 volume of Chaos, Solitons & Fractals. In other words latest by 1999 the following fundamental facts were proven by Mohamed El Naschie and elaborated upon extensively by J. Huan-He, Marek-Crnjac and Erwin Goldfain. Firs, the building blocks of quantum spacetime are random cantor sets with a golden mean Hausdorff dimension. Second, the expectation value of the topological dimension of the space time core is exactly 4. On the other hand, the corresponding exact Hausdorff dimension is exactly 4 plus the golden mean to the power of 3. That is to say, it is 4.23606799.... In 2008 the paper by Jan Ambjorn, Jerry Jurkiewicz and Renate Loll appeared in Scientific American. The paper uses computer simulation extensively. Well you could say it is not exactly computer simulation but computer computation of a Regg calculus approximation of a quantum gravity model. You could also view it as an improvement of Regg calculus using Ambjorn’s triangulation. Professor Jan Ambjorn from the Neils Bohr Institute in Copenhagen is a world authority on triangulation technique of this kind. Leaving details aside and to make a long story short, the main thrust and results of the paper are the following: Quantum space time is best modeled using cantor sets as building blocks. Second, assuming Prigogine’s arrow of time on the quantum level, things work out perfectly. Third and most importantly, a space time dimension of 4.02 was worked out from first principles for the first time. To see how much emphasis the authors put on this fact, let us quote verbatim what they wrote on page 29 of their July 2008 Scientific American Paper. They wrote “Imagine our elation when the number of dimensions came out as 4 (more precisely as 4.02 plus minus 0.1.)It was the first time anyone had ever derived the observed number of dimensions from first principles. “ We in E-Infinity theory group can imagine their elation but we ask you at the same time to imagine our alienation when no reference whatsoever was made in this paper or any of similar papers published at the same time in Physics Review Letter and the Journal of the Institute of Physics to our work. The first derivation of the dimensionality of quantum space time from first principle was made as you can check yourselves at least 9 years earlier. In fact the value found by Ambjorn et al namely 4.02 was found to be a spectral dimension and obtainable using other methods. One of these methods is the Bose Einstein statistics of El Naschie was found approximately 16 years earlier. When you see the structure of the paper in Scientific American you see that the logic expressed in the fractal figures on page 28 and 29 including the Menger Sponge and the Serpinski Gasket follow the same logic of El Naschie’s paper in Il Nuovo Cimento and the Journal of the Franklin Institute. Rediscovering things again and again was not uncommon in the past. We mean no disrespect to anybody when we point out these facts. What is important is how we react or others reacted to these facts. Something positive came out of this any case. Cantor sets are in quantum mechanics to stay. Random cantor sets with golden mean Hausdorff dimension are meantime an experimental fact. No amount of propaganda could possibly change these facts. Should we have unintentionally compromised anyone then we as a group apologize collectively as long as the issue of priority is restored. For science priority is unimportant. For scientists it is important. The Yang-‘tHooft know that better than anyone else. He wrote a great deal about something similar which happened to him in connection with the strong interaction. This is the subject which we will discuss shortly. Before doing that however let us recall something extremely important in various respects which involves Nobel Laureate Gerard ‘tHooft. In an excellent book on quantum gravity, edited by Daniel Oriti published in Cambridge this year but dated 2009, Gerard ‘tHooft makes the following answers to questions on page 155. The question was by L. Crane about non integer Hausdorff dimension in quantum gravity. ‘tHooft answered as follows: “We thought of such possibility. As far as the real world is concerned.............................................Weltma
n once thought there might be real physics in non integer dimensions but he never got anywhere with that............................................ I do know what negative dimensions is anti-commuting coordinate.” Those in the know must be exhilarated to see how far ahead of anybody E-Infinity group was. With all the due respect and it is a genuine respect we have for Gerard ‘tHooft, his statement could not remain unchallenged. Mohamed El Naschie derives the exact value of the Hausdorff dimension of quantum spacetime namely 4.23606799 from ‘tHooft’s dimensional regularization and he gets real physics out of it. We use the word real physics with large doses of salt. Talking about real physics in a simple way in the realm of quantum gravity can be the most misleading thing which one can do. We do not intend to dwell on the illusive nature of reality. However those who are philosophically inclined to use words like real physics should know about dozens of incidents where inclination to reality made reality disappear. The paper in question was entitled: On ‘tHooft dimensional regularization in E-Infinity space, Chaos, Solitons & Fractals 12 (2001) pp 851-858. This paper was preceded by another paper which was entitled: “ ‘Thooft dimensional regularization implies Cantorian Space time.” The paper was presented at a conference which the great man ‘tHooft himself attended. We sincerely hope that this closes the subject which Oh! So many lesser mortals try to keep artificially alive again and again on certain blogs. When you multiply 4.23606799 by ten you get 42.3606.........and this is the non super symmetric inverse grand unification coupling. Let us discuss how this value as well as the super symmetric value namely 26.18..........could be obtained from the fundamental equation of unification. This is what we will do in part 2 of this communication.

E-Infinity wrote on Apr. 15, 2010 @ 13:06 GMT

Communication No 25 Part 2

In Part 1 of this Communication we discussed the fact that the basic Hausdorff dimension of E-Infinity follows from ‘tHooft’s dimensional regularization and we hinted at several other things, for instance negative dimension as well as the connection between E-Infinity and certain types of Regg triangulations. We will return to negative dimension, fractal and the so-called physics as distinct from mathematics. Here however we will concentrate on the unification equation.

In E-Infinity the ideal value of the electro weak, electro magnetic, and strong coupling are given by inverse forms and they are remarkably integer values. We use them to reconstruct the inverse electro magnetic constant. We have done this several times before in these communications. Let me remind you. We have alpha bar 1 equal exactly 60. Alpha bar 2 is half this value namely 30. Alpha bar 3, we divide in 2 alphas. It is equal to 8 + 1 = 9. All these values are remarkably close to the experimentally found value. Please note these values belong to an idealized world. It is the world of Plato. It is the world of ideals. It is the world of the supreme entity which organizes this world. It is the world of the theoretical and mathematical physicists who are constructing general theories emulating the work of the Supreme Being and hoping at the end to find some indication that these theories are right. The indication comes out from the messy real world. It comes out from the messy laboratories. It comes out from billion of datum measured with different accuracies subject to human scatter, fallibility and noise. In addition we have alpha bar 4 which is equal unity. This value denotes the coupling between the Planck masses to the Planck ether, something which we most probably will not discover directly. The square of the Clibsch factor is also given in its ideal transfinite form namely the inverse of the golden mean which is pretty close to the classical value namely 5 divided by 3. Try it out. 5 divided by 3 is equal to 1.666.........The inverse golden mean is on the other hand 1.618033......Now we can write our first renormalization equation result for which we obtain the exact theoretical E-Infinity inverse electro magnetic fine structure coupling constant. The equation reads: alpha zero bar equal 60 multiplied by 30 plus 9 plus 1. This adds together to exactly 137.082039325........ Next we would like to derive the non-super symmetric unification inverse coupling. We follow almost the same procedure. This so called coupling constant which is of course not a constant but a function of the resolution which means a function of energy is equal to alpha bar 3 plus alpha 4. That means equal to 9 plus 1 = 10. Then we have the logarithmic term. The exact theory does not have a logarithmic term. The exact theory replaces logarithmic term with golden mean scaling. However let us work first with an approximation using the logarithmic term because it is educational and helps the beginner to see the light. Grand unification takes place roughly at the ‘tHooft-Polyakov monopole. This is a mass of about 10 to the power of 16 GeV, when expressed in energy unit. Of course we cannot take a natural logarithm of a figure with dimension. We have to resort to a trick to make it dimensionless. The trick is not arbitrary. We more or less take a reference energy which is the energy at which we take measurement. In this case we take the electro weak. More precisely let us take, as in the classical theory which you can find in any textbook, the energy scale of Z0. This is 91 GeV. When you take the natural logarithm of the ratio of both energies and we implore you to do so with your computers or pocket calculators, you will find it 32.3305...... We can assure you that the exact value is 32.3606...... and that this value is nothing but a scaling of the exact inverse electro magnetic fine structure constant of E-Infinity. In other words the logarithmic term is in reality nothing more and nothing less than 137.082039325........ multiplied by the golden mean to the power of 3. Adding our earlier 10 to this value you will find that the inverse unification constant becomes 42.3606...... This is exactly as we anticipated ten copies of the Hausdorff dimension of E-Infinity spacetime. What we have done here needs more elaboration. We will do that later on in detail. For now it is sufficient to know that 42.3606.... is the non-super symmetric inverse unification coupling constant. To obtain the super symmetric value, we contemplate in the following manner. The minimal super symmetry requires that every particle should have a super symmetric partner, a so-called sparticle. Since we are working with inverse value, the doubling enters as an inverse value. In our equation this is expressed via a factor 1 divided by Roh. In this case Roh is 2. Our factor is thus a half. This half has to be multiplied by the natural logarithmic term. This term we just calculated to be 32.606.... Half of that is exactly 16.18033.....Adding to this value our 10, the final result is 26.18033.......This is a delightful result. With minimal effort and incredible accuracy we obtain the two fundamental coupling constants of unification of all fundamental forces. The result agrees with most of the approximate results existing in the literature using various methods. These results vary in the first case between 40 and 45 and in the second case between 24 and 27. We will continue our calculation in the next Communication but we would like to close the discussion here by returning to ‘tHooft’s elucidation of negative dimensions. On such occasion it is quite in order to make some remarks on the nature of reality.

You remember Gerard ‘tHooft said in the discussion reproduced on page 152 of the book of Oriti which we cited earlier on: “A negative dimension could be understood as an anti commuting coordinate”. In other words, we think ‘tHooft means a Grassmanian value, something which is routinely used in super symmetric theory. We note parenthesically that ‘tHooft is normally skeptical about super symmetry and does not believe that it really exists in Nature. Then ‘tHooft continues by saying that we could think of an anti commuting differently and understand it as a negative dimension which replaces integration by differentiation. He said explicitly “differentiation is the inverse of integration.” A pure mathematician would find this language absurd. However from our E-Infinity viewpoint, we agree with the imaginative language of ‘tHooft and refute the pure mathematician allegation of absurdity. Of course we know that 1 divided by integration is not equal differentiation. Such a sentence has no meaning. Nevertheless a theoretical physicist, we know, what ‘tHooft is trying to tell us. We find it a great pity that the truly great Nobel Laureate Gerard ‘tHooft is not familiar with the mathematical theory of dimension and the work on E-Infinity and particularly El Naschie’s theory about negative dimension. You see ‘tHooft could reformulate himself by saying that he knows that a negative dimension namely a minus 1 dimension is the dimension of the empty set. The beauty of the whole thing is that we could use a more tangible language and say that something which has the dimension of minus 1 could be modeled by a fractal. As fractals become thinner and thinner, the dimension becomes more and more negative and when the fractal totally disappears, its dimension becomes infinitely negative. Many could say that fractals are just geometric figures and not physics. In such case I just pass. If someone feels that Grassmanian variables are more physical than fractals, then I have to give up and I have nothing anymore to say. The point is the following: To encompass the whole world we have to integrate from zero to infinity. Such world could be classical. However a quantum world has a ground state. A ground state could only be understood when we go behind the Zero. From this point of view to encompass the entire world, we have to integrate from minus Infinity to plus Infinity. That is what E-Infinity solved. In the same time this is one of the major problems with string theory. Nevertheless it was string theory which taught us how to deal with this problem in principle. It was on the other hand, the mathematical theory of Menger-Urhyson which gave us the tools to solve it. Our solution is what we call E-Infinity theory.

Jason replied on Apr. 15, 2010 @ 15:03 GMT
Why is there no communication No. 24?

Dr. Cosmic Ray replied on Apr. 15, 2010 @ 19:13 GMT
Dear Friends,

It looks FQXi moved all of these posts into one thread. I hope this topic loads faster now - it really has gotten bogged down with all of the posts.

Have Fun!

Jason replied on Apr. 16, 2010 @ 10:01 GMT
Ray, My experience so far is that any time saved by faster loading is overcompensated by the increased difficulty in finding the thread. It used to be that the "action" i.e., the latest discussion, was located in the logical place: the bottom of the page. No longer.

E-Infinity replied on Apr. 16, 2010 @ 12:18 GMT
Communication No 24

Unification and Confinement

Although the negative coupling constant of strong interaction related to confinement was discovered long ago by the young Gerard ‘tHooft in an unpublished work and was rediscovered several times later we hold different views about confinement. In E-Infinity theory we take the view proposed by El Naschie that an exact solution to confinement must be related to the structure of space time as well as the nature of the Planck scale. Similar to quantum gravity E-Infinity believe that the key to understanding confinement thoroughly is the Planck scale. We are of course aware that some regard experimental phenomena involving jets as an indirect observation of free quarks of a sort. However we find the picture a little bit involved using experimental and theoretical reasoning in a much interwoven way and therefore a clear cut mathematical derivation is not there. We are almost there. With almost I mean 95% there. However theoretical physicists are perfectionists. They could not leave a single spot anywhere without worrying about. This attitude is classical and ‘tHooft himself is a classical example for this way of thinking. Having said that, we must stress that El Naschie is by no means the only one who thinks that confinement should be linked to Planck energy scale physics. A British physicist working in Hungary, Lawrence B. Crowell, holds very similar views but we will not go into there in this communication. Let us go back to our exact renormalization unification equation.

Let us probe things at the Planck scale. This is 10 to the power of 19 GeV. As an energy reference scale, we take this time not the Z0 scale but the electron scale. To be precise we take a Cuba pair. The mass is twice that of an electron which is roughly 10 to the power of – 3 GeV. The natural logarithmic term in this case is ln of the ratio of the above mentioned scale. In other words it is ln 10 to the power of 22. School mathematics teaches us that this is 22 multiplied by ln 10. Anyone looking at this number and is also familiar with E-Infinity transfinite corrections will guess immediately in a split of a second that 22 should be 22 + k and ln 10 should be 2 + 2k. Here k is our famous number 0.18033989. More accurately it is the golden mean to the power of 3 multiplied by 1 minus the golden mean to the power of 3. Our logarithmic term is therefore exactly equal to 52 plus 2k. Assuming super symmetry we have to divide by 2 and obtain 26 + k. This is exactly 26.18033989. Our equation is now as follows. On the left hand side we have the inverse unification coupling. On the right hand side we have the inverse strong coupling alpha bar 3 added to alpha bar 4 added to the value of the logarithmic term divided by 2. On the other hand, we know very well that super symmetric unification takes place at the inverse coupling 26 + k. This term on the left hand side cancels the logarithmic term divided by 2 on the right hand side. Therefore we conclude that alpha bar 3 plus alpha bar 4 must be equal to 0. Now we know for sure that alpha bar 4 is equal unity. It follows therefore that the inverse strong coupling alpha bar 3 must be equal to minus 1. This is exactly the point which people searching for confinement missed again and again until young ‘tHooft found it and spoke about it in a discussion which took place in a conference in Marseilles, France many years ago. Our derivation is however exact. El Naschie gave some eccentric elucidation using analogies from visitors in outer space. You can read this in his papers which are now available free of charge in a blog financed by a charity institute. Physicists love trivial eccentric analogies to illustrate the main points of what they are proposing. Einstein loved to ride over a photon and fly with a speed of light. Others have even more outrageous ways of illustrating their point. To make a fuss about these things shows only how shallow the person in question is. I am really putting it here very politely. After all we are assuming that all readers of this blog are scientists. The odd 2 or 3 do not really count. We will return to confinement and harmonization in the next communication.

Anonymous wrote on Apr. 21, 2010 @ 09:51 GMT
Dear E-infinity:

In your previous very long post you still didn't mention the ontological basis of E-infinity through its topological perspective. The idea of weird topology is the backbone of E-infinity leading to weird results that seems very natural in E-infinity context. The transition from classical traditions of physics (here I mean classical and quantum) to E-infinity paradise is a paradigm shift and it could last many centuries for the ideas to be familiar and understood. In fact we reached the extreme boundary of knowledge without being matured enough, except the great man with his brave soul and his goodself holding the torch to illuminate our route for knowledge through darkness of ignorance.

"We are just a tiny fractal of very large fat fractal, to be precise we are just remnant of fractal dust."


"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)

"All knowledge are fractals or counting on our golden fingers"

Unknown primary school student

Jason wrote on Apr. 21, 2010 @ 17:43 GMT
E-Infinity, is there going to be a Communication No. 26? Or is that it.

Dr. Cosmic Ray replied on Apr. 21, 2010 @ 19:23 GMT
It should be No. 26.18034...

Jason replied on Apr. 22, 2010 @ 00:10 GMT
:) Good one, Ray.

Single Ray wrote on Apr. 22, 2010 @ 14:27 GMT
If this is the standard of comments on this blog I would doubt very much there would be any more communications on E-Infinity. At least it would be unlikely on this blog. The Anonymous thick skinned could continue his sick comments. We pray for his salvation.

Ray Munroe replied on Apr. 22, 2010 @ 16:17 GMT
Dear Single Ray,

I use my real name when I'm serious, and I use "Dr. Cosmic Ray" (because I performed Cosmic Ray research with NASA in '97 and '98, and some fellow Professors started that nickname) when I'm goofing around. I think everyone on this thread understands the potential meaning of 26.18034 - whether we accept E-Infinity Theory as fact or fiction.

I don't know the "Anonymous" blogger, but the comment "we are just remnant of fractal dust" is an interesting thesis related to Scale Invariance.

I think we lost T.H. Ray because he doesn't believe in Scale Invariance. But those of us who support the importance of the Golden Ratio in the Natural World *MUST* accept this implication. Perhaps the phase transition that produced Inflation *ALSO* produced Scale Invariance. The nature of the Planck Scale (and Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle) and the edge of the Universe remove us from being able to directly observe Scale Invariance. This is another possible configuration of the Multiverse - we are tiny a bubble Universe hidden inside of a large bubble Universe by the Uncertainty Principle ad infinitum (it reminds me of Dr. Seuss' "Horton Hears a Who"), as opposed to the more conventional description of the multiverse - we are all bubble Universes expanding from the bottom of a glass of Champagne - emmanating from the same point, but never again meeting each other. Either way, we cannot directly interact with those possible alternate Universes - we are separated by "scale" and quantum effects, or we are separated by relativity and the speed of light.

What is E-Infinity's official position on Scale Invariance?

Have Fun!


Jason wrote on Apr. 22, 2010 @ 16:53 GMT
Yes, I'd like to hear about scale invariance. Or anything else E-Infinity has on his mind.

El Naschie by the way has begun writing a daily column in Rosa Al-youssef, a shill newspaper for the Mubarak regime. It may be that the lack of E-Infinity communications lately is due to his being too busy to lend assistance.

Anonymous wrote on Apr. 22, 2010 @ 20:34 GMT
I am praying that E-infinity continue posting their communications forever.

They are really sources of E-infinite jokes and amusements. I hope also to make nested communications with fractal structure, that means within each communication you will find another one and so on. I will appreciate if you impose more symmetry on the communication, to give the same meaning if you read it from left to right as you read it from right to left. More beauty can be achieved through top-bottom and bottom-top symmetries, even one can include diagonal symmetries.

Finally, I would like E-infinity to collect these precious communications in a book, and I'm sure it will be nominated for a noble prize as Alexey Stakhov with his infamous book. As an advice, please distribute this book containing the communications as a joke book and not as a scientific one, I bet this would be more profitable.

"All knowledge are fractals or counting on our golden fingers"

Unknown primary school student

Ray Munroe replied on Apr. 22, 2010 @ 21:12 GMT
Dear Anon,

Your posts are getting funnier, but there is still a slight language barrier. Although the Nobel prize is a noble honor (presented by the King of Sweden), it is spelled *N_O_B_E_L*, *NOT* *N_O_B_L_E*. Twenty-nine years ago, one of my professors used that pun to describe my early ideas on Quantum Statistical Grand Unified Theory - I wasn't certain if it was a compliment or an insult - I smiled and didn't include him in any of my later ideas...

Because El Naschie normalized his "Golden Fibonacci Sequence" on the integer 10 (i.e. ..., 4-k, 6+k, 10, 16+k, 26+k, 42+2k, ...), it does make all kinds of multiplication and division quite simple. We could literally use the "golden fingers" on one hand to estimate powers of the Golden Ratio by counting with Fibonacci's Sequence, and the "golden fingers" on the other hand to count powers of ten or metric prefixes. Are you jealous because you haven't yet mastered that art? Personally, I prefer my scientific calculator or Microsoft Excel. But this really isn't what these discussions are about. You are simply trying to provide a distraction.

You joke about symmetry, but lack of symmetry is my biggest problem with the Standard Model of Particle Physics. Scale Invariance is another "weird" symmetry that many scientists ignore (how could anyone prove it?), but it is no "crazier" than the concept of a Multiverse.

I would like to hear E-Infinity's official view on Scale Invariance. And is scale invariance related to a quantum phase transition?

Have Fun!


Anonymous wrote on Apr. 22, 2010 @ 22:44 GMT
The discussion presented in this blog doesn't contain any physics nor mathematics. According to me, it is full of jokes. I wonder, that one having Ph.D in particle physics flowing seriously the discussion here. If you want to do proper and serious physics then you should devote all of your life for doing that and not just a week end. Then submitting your work to a respectable journal not to CSF.

This is another example for another paper of the great man may could inspire other people for doing such kind of research.

Maybe after reading the Da Vinci code novel or watching its movie.The great man El naschie inspired to write one of his numerous fascinating papers which is

The cosmic Da Vinci code for the big bang - a mathematical toy model

Published in International journal of nonlinear sciences and numerical simulation, volume:8,issue: 2, pages:191-194 and published in the year 2007


Division by zero is the source of all infinites in mathematics

and could be likened to a mathematical big bang. It is therefore clear that

starting from any two very small successive dimensions phi(n) and phi(n-1)

where phi = (root 5-1)/2, one could generate all fundamental dimensionless

quantities of physics and in particular the inverse electromagnetic fine

structure constant alpha(o) congruent to 137. This is simply achieved by

applying the simple local role of the Fibonacci progression as described in

a recent paper (M.S. El Naschie, Chaos, Solitons and Fractals, 31, 2007,537-547).

Anonymous wrote on Apr. 22, 2010 @ 22:50 GMT
Another incidence for showing the supreme capability of E-infinity

theory that can explain any thing, nothing and every thing. One

can look at the article whose title is

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


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).

T H Ray wrote on Apr. 23, 2010 @ 01:39 GMT

You wrote, "I think we lost T.H. Ray because he doesn't believe in Scale Invariance."

On the contrary, it is scale _dependence_ that I don't accept. A time dependent model _has_ to be scale invariant, as you suggest, in order for all parts of the universe to communicate non-relativistically. That is, time has to have quantum uniformity even while local time-distance measures are relative. Inflation assumes uniformity. A quantum-relativistic universe assumes broken symmetry.

However, when you speak of scale invariance independent of observation, you relegate it to scale dependence (and there is therefore no continuity of quantum physics with the classical; no possible unified theory).

My model concludes that if the 4 dimension horizon is identical to the 10 dimension limit (and I do provide numerical support that it is so), then the world in which we live _is_ scale invariant, infinitely self similar and Lebesgue measurable.


Ray Munroe replied on Apr. 23, 2010 @ 12:56 GMT
Dear Tom,

My ideas are constantly evolving. I think they are scale invariant now, but I have only shared the latest version with Lawrence.

Dear Anon,

My father is a businessman, but there are also Engineers in my family. I am the lone physicist in my family, and have always been torn between Physics and Business. After I finished my Ph.D. in High Energy Physics in 1996, I had two job offers: 1) my friend Prof. Xerxes Tata at the U. of Hawaii offered me a Postdoc, and 2) a teaching position as an Assistant Professor at the University of Mobile (in Mobile, Alabama). Because of family dynamics (closer to home and better pay), I chose Mobile over Hawaii.

I taught at the U of Mobile for three years, and performed research at NASA'a Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Alabama during the summers. I loved life as a teacher. I enjoyed the hours, and I enjoyed being called "Dr. Munroe". My typical Tuesday/Thursday schedule consisted of teaching calculus-based Pre-Engineering Physics at 8 am, non-calculus Pre-Med Physics at 9:30 am, and non-technical Physical Science at 11 am. I typically taught Laboratories on Mondays and Wednesdays. I worked my office hours around the rest of my schedule, and was usually off by 3 pm and on Fridays. Typically, I had about an extra 25 hours a week worth of prep time and grading that I would often do at home, but I loved having long weekends, and I loved being able to go to the gym at a reasonable time of day.

Family dynamics forced me back to Tallahassee, Florida and back into the family business in 1999. I continued to teach Introductory Astronomy at nights as an Adjunct Instructor at Tallahassee Community College from 2000 until 2003. If I could make the same money teaching that I make as the CEO of a multi-million dollar corporation, I would teach. I eventually gave up teaching to make more time for my personal research. At the time, I was finishing up my Quantum Statistical Grand Unified Theory (QSGUT) and working on an alternative rocket engine with my great-uncle, the Engineer. I tried to publish QSGUT in respectable journals. My first choice was Phys Rev D because my prior publications had been in that journal. They simply said that my QSGUT paper was "not appropriate" for their journal. I would have appreciated some detailed constructive criticism, but I never recieved much. I also submitted the paper to EPJC with the same response. After two years of being rejected, I finally decided to self-publish my ideas on

My publications in CS&F were not planned - they just happened. I wrote a paper at Nasr Ahmed's request for Newcastle University's Dept. of Math & Statistics Postgraduate Magazine. Nasr thought it was too advanced for the magazine, but he forwarded it to M.S. El Naschie, and El Naschie wanted to put in CS&F. The same happened to the second paper that I sent to Nasr. Finally, I wrote a non-technical paper that Nasr used in the magazine. IMHO, El Naschie has been fair with me and I would like to return the favor. I have not bought E-Infinity Theory "hook, line and sinker" because I think there are flaws in this theory. But don't worry, I think I can fix it.

I love FQXi because it allows an isolated physicist like me to share ideas with other intellegent people. Dr. Lawrence Crowell and I are working together. His knowledge of General Relativity and Mathematics complements my knowledge of Particle Physics and Solid State Physics.

Have Fun!


E-Infinity wrote on Apr. 24, 2010 @ 13:47 GMT
Dear Ray

The bureau of E-Infinity in China has taken the view that it is useless to continue any meaningful scientific discussion on this blog. Consequently, they have established an E-Infinity Communication Journal. This will fill the gap and satisfy a need after the censorship imposed worldwide and the close down of Chaos, Solitons & Fractals and scaling it down to a run of the mill journal of nonlinear dynamics. We think you for your encouraging remark though and will consider posting comments now and then. However the bulk of our work will be this new blog or Journal if you want. The home of the Journal will be either the Middle East or the Far East to keep it safe from vandalisms. Once more thank you Ray for your balanced comment and your increased awareness of the importance of our work towards which you have contributed in non trivial ways. In particular your E12 holds promises for future development.

Best regards,


Ray Munroe replied on Apr. 24, 2010 @ 19:32 GMT
Dear E,

Thank you for the offer. I hope that Lawrence and I can get our ideas on arXiv. But I may have ideas that are independent of Lawrence's that I may want to publish. My FQXi friend, Jonathan Dickau, has some contacts but I will certainly remember your offer as well.

Good luck with your endeavor!


Jason replied on Apr. 26, 2010 @ 14:10 GMT
Hello E-Infinity, Ray, and everyone on FQXi-395.

About the new E-Infinity Communication Journal. Does it exist yet? What is the URL? Thanks.


Anonymous wrote on Apr. 26, 2010 @ 20:59 GMT
Dear E-infinity,

Please come back, your posts about E-infinity were humorous. Really we lost these jokes. My tears is running on my cheeks. I couldn't say farewell to E-infinity

After drinking E-infinity Juice
I started to be loose
I followed my nose
I found E-infinity is the primary cause.
Chaos are everywhere
E-infinity can fix it and repair
Peoples are not always fair
The great man doesn't care
He is climbing his E-infinity stair
E-infinity, I can't say goodbye
E-infinity wouldn't die
E-infinity just going to the sky

[Note six-month silence is broken.]
Mike wrote on Oct. 11, 2010 @ 09:54 GMT
A major breakthrough in understanding wave collapse. This is the least we can say about this new profound discovery. The most astonishing thing about it is why it was not discovered long ago. In a nutshell the essence of the argument is as follows: A quantum particle may be modeled as a point. However it is not any point. It is a Cantor point. That means it is a fractal point taking out of Laurent Nottale’s or Garnet Ord’s fractal spacetime. Consequently it is a point but much more than a point at the same time. Every Cantor point or fractal point is by virtue of self-similarity a point representation of the entire universe, i.e. the fractal universe upon sufficient magnification. This zooming process, as explained by Nottale, has no end. This is all well known stuff from the theory of fractals. Now comes the crucial point. Since this point is nominally a point we take it to be mathematically the zero set and physically to be a quantum particle. Now the boundary of the zero set is the empty set. The empty set has no element what so ever and is given in the classical theory a dimension minus one. Never mind all these numbers. The important thing is just to keep in mind that a Cantor or a fractal point represents a quantum particle and that the boundary of this quantum particle is the empty set. It comes as no surprise that El Naschie and his E-infinity group propose that the empty set is just the mathematical name for the probability wave function of quantum mechanics. Such a wave function is devoid of energy, matter and momentum to the extent that it mystified all physicists and led Einstein as well as Bohm to call it a ghost wave. There is even a theory by both men called the guiding wave theory. The guiding wave is nothing but the empty set. So far so good. Here comes the resolution of the wave collapse problem say the group of E-infinity researchers. Any attempt to locate the quantum particle will include interference with its boundary. Since its boundary is the empty set, then any interference will make the empty set non-empty. Consequently the empty set ceases to exist. On the other hand the empty set is our quantum wave function. It follows as a trivial result that when the empty set vanishes because it becomes non-empty, then the wave function also vanishes. The group of E-infinity did not stop at this disarming explanation of the wave collapse. Using the Menger-Urysohn and the Hausdorff dimension of the zero set and the empty set, they are able to make convincing calculations and derive the topology of the spacetime manifold which allowed such physics involving the empty set wave collapse. You can read about that in proceedings of a conference in Shanghai and With a theory like that we are in a much better position to start unifying quantum mechanics with relativity and produce a real theory of quantum gravity. At least there is more hope that way.

Ray Munroe replied on Oct. 18, 2010 @ 13:37 GMT
Dear Mike,

Don't worry about Anonymouse. I think that most everyone who has written many articles makes a mistake from time to time. I'm not here to crucify people for their mistakes, but to reinforce people in their search for the truth.

This (attached) article shows some of the similarities and differences between my ideas and El Naschie's. An upcoming article will build on Nottale's ideas. Personally, I think that Nottale's ideas are Nobel-worthy, but I'm not exactly sure how to verify them experimentally. If we can probe "fundamental particles" closely enough, they might demonstrate the proposed small-scale fractal nature of the Multiverse. The recent "quark-gluon plasma" event observed by the LHC could be the result of a fractal spacetime.

Regarding ghosts, I think that these ghosts are the key to the origin of mass. Feynman diagrams have higher-order ghost-loop corrections. Garrett Lisi's E8 theory should have had more ghosts in it (Lisi "fudged" the E8 by including bosons instead of more "fermionic ghosts" but that does not yield a proper 5-fold "pentality" symmetry). I think that these ghosts are "scalar fermions" - wierd tachyonic entities that have an intrinsic spin of 1/2 h-bar in 8-D, but an intrinsic spin projection of zero in our 4-D spacetime. Whereas bradyonic "normal mass" is "localized energy", these tachyons are extremely "non-localized energy". These tachyons travel faster than the speed of light (perhaps instantaneously), and we cannot observe them in our scale because the speed-of-light is the upper cut-off of our scale. As such, they should be observable in the Multiverse as a complete entity, and within a scale of greater complexergy.

More to come in my next paper that builds on Nottale's ideas, but I'm not yet ready to expose those ideas.

Have Fun!

attachments: crowellmunroe.pdf

Anonymous wrote on Oct. 18, 2010 @ 08:00 GMT
Please Mike (=El naschie), also don't forget a real theory of fiber wool pioneered by J. Huan He. This theory of fiber wall is a real remarkable achievement and should be mentioned in in the proceedings of Shanghai conference 2010.

Again Mike, don't confuse between fiber bundle and fiber wool, they are two different things. Your very poor knowledge of both math and physics could result in such a kind of confusion.

Anonymous wrote on Oct. 18, 2010 @ 13:37 GMT
It is sure that El naschie doesn't understand elementary quantum mechanics nor elementary physics.

When the wave function collapses due to measurement, it collapses to another wave function. For example, when you measure the momentum and you get certain value for it, then the wave function of the system directly after the measurement will be eigen function of momentum with this certain value of momentum.

I hope El naschie to do some efforts to understand what he is saying and to check standard text book on quantum mechanics.

Ray Munroe replied on Oct. 18, 2010 @ 13:52 GMT
Dear Anonymouse,

The collapse of the wave-function is related to the transition from a continuous wave function to a discrete quantum number. As such, I think that Lucas numbers are involved - as mentioned in the paper that I attached a few minutes ago.

Have Fun!

G. Mahdi wrote on Nov. 7, 2010 @ 00:09 GMT
Quite honestly I trust Prof. Mohamed El Naschie far more than I trust the judgement of Nature. I do not consider it outlandish to suggest a Nobel prize for El Naschie. Let me give you the rationale behind my conclusion. Surely you heard about the two genius Russian born scientists Andre Geim and Konstantin Novoselov. I was present at a talk involving the two lucky but deserving winners of the Nobel Prize of this year (2010). What they recounted speaks for the magazine Science and speaks against Nature. They said their paper was eventually published when they submitted it to Science. They added it was rejected twice by Nature. Something very unnatural is happening to Nature. Instead of publishing defamatory tabloid articles against El Naschie they should have at least published the paper of the two ingenious Nobel winners of this year. Nature also refused to publish the paper reporting the experimental discovery of the golden mean in quantum mechanics by the Helmholtz Center and Oxford University. It was again Science which published the article. A year or so later after the publication in Science, Nature overcame themselves to publish a short article about the article published in Science. When one of my colleagues who is aware of El Naschie’s papers and findings on the golden mean in quantum mechanics wrote a comment about El Naschie’s achievement and sent it to Nature, they refused even to acknowledge the bare facts. It is really becoming a personal war declared by Nature against El Naschie. The looser is the scientific community and science. In fact Nature is losing in a big way by publishing doubtful papers on climatology and ignoring fundamental and path breaking work because they will otherwise be forced to mention the name of El Naschie. It is unreal. Who thought Nature would behave in such a fashion? There seems to be something fundamentally wrong with the way Nature is being run at present. Of course Nature is the world’s most famous science magazine for everyone. The sooner they undertake self correction, the better it will be for everybody.

James wrote on Nov. 7, 2010 @ 00:20 GMT
Dear Anonymous who seems to me to be somebody who studied quantum mechanics. In addition I am sure he is someone who holds a grudge against El Naschie for whatever reason. The problem with those who learn very hard from text books is that they can never think outside the box. Wave collapse means different things to different people. El Naschie said countless times that he is not a physicist. He is an engineer. Therefore his terminology may not be the most familiar one to those who were trained as physicists. The fact that we were well trained does not automatically imply that we are original thinkers. In fact it implies more frequently than not, just the opposite. Having said that of course El Naschie understands that wave collapse means the realization of one possibility against a host of possibilities implied by super position but it could as well mean, if you think out of the box, the far more drastic possibility of jumping from a wave to a particle. You can apply the same logical analysis using set theory and the empty set to both interpretations of what we mean with wave collapse. To understand that you have to think out of the box which you are clearly incapable of. Let me put it that way. A lawyer may be well versed in the procedures of the court. However if he is a stupid lawyer he will still lose his case. In contrast with that an intelligent layman defending himself may make many procedural errors but he is more likely to win the case because he is not stupid. If you, Anonymous are not stupid, then you can guess which role fits best to you.

BN wrote on Nov. 8, 2010 @ 22:02 GMT
I would like to talk, if I am allowed to, about another subject which I think is only too fair. All the three musketeers, Prof. Garnet Ord, Dr. Laurent Nottale and Prof. Mohamed El Naschie discovered something which was all along missing. Quantum mechanics does not recognize the zero and the empty set. It is hilarious that those working in the most advanced mathematics used in physics, namely quantum theory do not know the basics of mathematics which is set theory. The basis of set theory is the zero set and the empty set. The empty set is the beginning of everything. As a consequence of this peculiar state quantum mechanics does not recognize anything to do with fractals. The non-recognition of the fine structure of fractals is the basic source of all counter-intuitive results in quantum mechanics. The results themselves are of course not counter-intuitive. What is counter-intuitive is the interpretation of the results without referring to fractal geometry. The only two scientists I know of who escape this viscous circle apart of our three musketeers are Sir Roger Penrose and Field Medalist Prof. Alain Connes. Noncommutative geometry is necessarily fractal geometry. They may call it foliation. They may call it quotient space. They may call it leaf of foliation. They may call it what they like but it is fractal. That is it is zero measure and empty sets as backbone. Almost twenty years later a notable meteorologist noticed the same thing which the three musketeers discovered twenty years earlier. This notable meteorologist is Prof. T.N. Palmer from the University of Oxford. Palmer wrote last year in the Royal Society a remarkable paper where he formulates the thesis of Ord, Nottale and El Naschie in one sentence. He concludes “quantum mechanics is blind to fractals”. For this reason and apart of anything else I suggest that in all earnestness that it is only fair to at least consider Ord, Nottale and El Naschie for a Nobel Prize in Theoretical Physics. Sir Roger Penrose as well as Alain Connes got the equivalent of a Nobel Prize. There remains only in such a case Prof. T.N. Palmer who is a Fellow of the Royal Society. I was astonished to hear that Nature twice declined the acceptance of the work which won this year’s Nobel Prize of Physics. The two Russian born scientists who work in Manchester were discouraged but ultimately sent the paper to Science which accepted their work and five years later they shared the Nobel Prize in Physics for 2010. You cannot say that the Nobel Committee is unfair. However sometimes unfair competition clouds the vision of the Nobel Committee.

Anon wrote on Nov. 8, 2010 @ 23:21 GMT
Yansen, If it is really your name and if you really meant your comment seriously and not viscously, the explanation is very simple. Quantum mechanics is incomplete. There is nothing called really measurement. What you learnt so superciliously from books is wrong. You should have read John Bell (Against Measurement). The important point is to realize that the disappearance of the interference fringes which way information is obtained is not a mystery. It is because of what you interpret wrongly as a wave collapse. El Naschie correctly identifies a fractal point with a point in noncommutative geometry with a quantum particle. Similarly a wave function is the surface of a fractal point and is the surface of a point in noncommutative geometry and is the surface of a quantum particle. A quantum particle can thus be modeled by zero set and the quantum wave by an empty set. Any interference with the empty set changes it to non-empty. You should remember that von Neumann used set theory in his famous book. He started on the wrong foot however and came like you to a wrong conclusion. In the book which was published posthumously von Neumann was correct. This is the book which El Naschie studied and you did not. Stop being arrogant because arrogance always results in stupidity. Sorry to tell you that. However if your name is John Baez then I am not sorry to say that.

Anonymous replied on Nov. 10, 2010 @ 22:19 GMT
I agree with Anon. The comment claiming does not understand quantum mechanics stems from an ignoramus. El Naschie did not explicitly mention that landing on the detection screen is equivalent to continuous measurement. Of course when you measure once only the wave function is restored in a different form because of the ambient spacetime providing infinite possibilities for empty set surface. However this is understood. I can see that there are people who are furious for having missed the point which El Naschie has found. Take this sickening creature called Jason. He does not do anything except write trash on behalf of John Baez I guess. John Baez himself left mathematics and went on a vacation to the mountains of Asia, maybe searching for salvation or will he be converted to Buddhism. That is enough to make the point. JC

Hernandez wrote on Nov. 10, 2010 @ 22:27 GMT
Excuse my French but I could not give a shit for anyone who thinks I am a sock puppet because I am not. The real sock puppets are those members of the funding mafia in the European community. Prof. Mohamed El Naschie was an honorable gentleman with no vested interest except scientific interest. He opened the journal to all new ideas. He did not discriminate between those graduating from Cambridge, Princeton, Ecole Normale Superieure or just anywhere in Eastern Europe, South America or Spain. That way we were able to publish our original research without licking the boots of the establishment first. That is where all these bastards, excuse my French again, united and conspired to close Chaos, Solitons & Fractals and shed doubt on the integrity of a hundred percent man. Do you think Einstein was a graduate of Princeton? Of course not. He grew up in Ulm where a third class university exists. He was in Switzerland when they were making cuckoo clocks. When he was appointed to Princeton it was a third class university newly opened in the Wild West. You are against Laurent Nottale because he did not graduate from an elite school and he is from a Jewish Hungarian descent and a not very affluent family. However Nottale was before even the great Alain Connes in discovering the importance of fractals for quantum mechanics. Alain Connes calls it foliation. Of course Connes uses very advanced mathematics. Of course it is more advanced mathematics than that used by Nottale. However this advanced mathematics is not needed. Besides El Naschie used partially more advanced mathematics than that used by Connes but of course he is just an Arab and an engineer and what is worse, an Egyptian Moslem. Is that how we conduct science nowadays? Before we look at a scientific paper we must check who the mother and father of the author is? The whole thing is becoming more than ridiculous. It is my firm opinion that these three guys, called by some the three musketeers, should share a Nobel Prize in Physics. In particular the French scientific community should apologize to Laurent Nottale for the harm and injustice they inflicted on him. Garnet Ord, Laurent Nottale and Mohamed El Naschie did a great deal for the advancement of our understanding of quantum mechanics. I call on all scientists who have benefited from Chaos, Solitons & Fractals to write letters protesting the closing of Chaos, Solitons & Fractals and calling the reinstatement of Prof. El Naschie as an Editor in Chief. The real mistake of this man is that he was not a sock puppet of any publisher or any interest group controlling funding in Europe and America.

Ray Munroe replied on Nov. 11, 2010 @ 14:51 GMT
Dear Hernandez,

Don't pull any punches! LOL!

My next paper will build on Nottale's ideas. Perhaps he will eventually gain the recognition that he deserves.

I am a US Southerner, but I also have poor connections with the Boston-New England coalition that controls the most prestigious American journals. We can only hope that good ideas will survive the tests of time and prejudice.

Have Fun!

Jason replied on Nov. 11, 2010 @ 16:10 GMT
Ray, this idea that Northeastern chauvinism makes it difficult for Southerners, or people of any background whatsoever, to publish in the best math and physics journals is false and beneath you. Really, you should be ashamed of mimicking El Naschie's ethnic victim whinge.

Ray Munroe replied on Nov. 11, 2010 @ 16:49 GMT
Hi Jason,

No - I don't like people whining about being victims - I believe in blazing my own path - with or without help. Personally, I think it is fair to say that some of the worst experiences that I had from my Physics brethren were from people who had backgrounds with MIT or Princeton (although one of my former students finished his Doctorate at MIT last year - he sent my daughter an MIT beaver and invited me to his thesis defense, so they aren't all "evil"). Is it discrimination? Is it snobbery? Or did they just plain dislike me? I don't know, nor do I really care. I live for another day and another battle.

Have Fun!

Ahmad Islam wrote on Nov. 30, 2010 @ 12:16 GMT
Dear Dr. Ron Smith,

The information given to you is totally incorrect. The number of Prof. El Naschie’s papers published which you give is over 17 years the period during which he was the Editor in Chief of Chaos, Solitons & Fractals. During this entire time he was not affiliated with Alexandria University, only in the last five years. Prof. El Naschie published nearly a thousand papers in ten or more different fields including science policy, art, literature and history. He is not only a scientist but a scholar and a benevolent man of great knowledge, fortune and the right attitude towards the developing world where he emanated from. Mohamed El Naschie was raised and educated in West Germany, not Egypt.

All this knowledge and information you can obtain directly by researching the subject properly or by reading his daily column in Rosa Al Yusuf, a semi-official daily newspaper published by the Rosa AlYusuf enterprise in Cairo and you can also find it on line. In fact Prof. El Naschie wrote a few days ago an article condemning the article published in the New York Times. His column was entitled half-truths of the New York Times. Maybe you would like to know the origins of the fuss about Prof. El Naschie. Since you are a political scientist, you may like to know that he is a member of the Peace Now Organization in Israel and has spoken vigorously about the rights of the Palestine as well as the rights of Israel to exist and live in peace. Today’s article in Rosa AlYusuf is about the courage of Emil Zola in the Dreyfuss affair as well as a plea to release all innocent prisoners in Israel. Mohamed El Naschie is a very original thinker. He was trained as a structural engineer and practiced his profession for many years before becoming an academic and full professor in engineering. Even later still he moved his interests to theoretical physics. He is one of three main proponents of a radical new theory of spacetime based on fractals. The other two are Garnet Ord in Canada and Laurent Nottale in France. It is because of his original work which was hijacked and published in Scientific American in the year 2008 that all this scandal was created purposely and maliciously. The scientific thieves seem to be a group around a very prominent Nobel laureate. It is very unfortunate that Prof. El Naschie has no way of defending himself or allowing us to defend him because the Nobel laureate is a very close family friend of his. Do not take my word for it but research it yourself. The whole fuss about El Naschie is a mixture of political intrigue, Middle Eastern style and scientific funding of theoretical physics as well as fights for prize money and glory, including the Nobel prize for which he was nominated several times. This nomination may not be the short list but I know for sure that nomination took place. One of the nominators was a Nobel laureate who lives in the capital of a very small but prominent country. It is very unfortunate that your blog and your article is being used by an internet vandal whose name is Jason Rush. Jason Rush is professional at defamation and a true internet disgrace. Just research his background. He has been doing this stuff for a year to many people. He is not mentally stable. He is unemployed. His wife Monica Rush seems to support him and he lives under miserable conditions in a miserable neighborhood in Seattle. He got a degree in mathematics from Seattle and worked there but he was sacked. He searched for work in Microsoft and did work there for a while until he was also sacked. He is a dangerous and viscous desperado and it is unfortunate that he is using your blog to spread his poison. Again, please check this for yourself. It is extremely important to be wary of what one reads today, particularly when it comes to scandal and intrigue for which the gutter press is very grateful.

Ahmad Islam

E-infinity Group wrote on Dec. 3, 2010 @ 21:55 GMT
3rd December, 2010.

E-infinity Communication No. 40.

The new article by Garrett Lisi et al in Scientific American, December 2010 and the work of the E-infinity Group on E8 exceptional Lie groups.

The first article which appeared on the arXiv by garret Lisi entitled ‘An exceptionally simple theory of everything’ dated 6th November, 2007. This article seems to have been recommended on the arXiv by Prof. Lee Smolin working at that time intensively on establishing the Parameter Inst. Waterloo, Canada. Subsequent to the publication and unprecedented media hype followed mainly due to an article in the Telegraph. There was an enormous publicity and controversy. A second article followed in the Telegraph. The first article in the Telegraph announced that Garrett Lisi is the new Einstein. The second article announced that he is no Einstein. Of course all that has nothing to do with science. However scientists are sometimes, and maybe wrongly so, touchy about priority. They are also touchy about people using their work and not giving them credit. It is understandable to a point. Payment and everything worldly in science is very little. The main thing which remains for scientists is reputation, a sense of being appreciated and the hope that they will be remembered for their scientific contributions. It is really not much to ask when you think about the benefits and financial gain which other people make of science. Commercial publishers alone make billions in profit from publishing scientific work. The people who invented computers died in poverty. Computer companies are multi-national billion dollar enterprises. The guy who invented the internet is anything but a millionaire. Do not ask how much Google earns a day. For this reason maybe it is not unreasonable that there was a great deal of controversy about Lisi’s paper not giving credit to anyone who used E8, his exceptional Lie symmetry group. String theoreticians used it long ago. Of course they used it differently. To super strings, E8 E8 gives an otherwise non-super symmetric theory super symmetry and that way they get rid of many contradictions and maladies which the 26 dimensional Bosonic theory possesses. Lisi however uses E8 itself. He did not need to refer to strings, quantum gravity loops or any other physical model. The only model he had was the model of E8 itself only which is a pure geometrical model. Well you could argue that any model is at the end a mathematical model. That is true but Lisi did not invent any model, physical or mathematical. He simply took over the mathematical model of E8 as established by a mathematician thinking about mathematical structures with little if any physical thoughts in the back of their mind. Some critics thought that this is the ingenuity of Lisi. Other critics thought that this is the naivety of Lisi. You can argue any way you like. It is however a fact that one of the principle members of our group, Prof. M.S. El Naschie did the same thing within E-infinity theory long ago around 2004. Other members, for instance Prof. Marek-Crnjac and Prof. He as well as Prof. Iovane also considered the exceptional Lie group in a far wider context than Lisi and this was before Lisi published his paper. Referring explicitly to E8 and publishing papers with E8 in the title was also done long before Lisi. For instance one of the early papers on E-line exceptional Lie group was published in Int. J. of Nonlinear Sci. & Num. Simulation, 8(3), p. 445-450 (2007), entitled ‘Exceptional Lie groups hierarchy and the structure of the micro universe’. This is several months before the appearance of the first paper by Lisi on the arXiv. From the end of 2006 to roughly the time when Lisi published his paper on 6th November, 2007 Prof. El Naschie and his group published more than a dozen papers on the exceptional Lie groups and its application and physics and cosmology. He also recognized many things which are now coming to play a role in the newest of Lisi’s paper in Scientific American entitled ‘A geometric theory of everything’, December 2010. Needless to say, Lisi did not acknowledge any work of Prof. El Naschie or our group not in 2007 and not now although it is absolutely clear from even a superficial reading of his newest article in Scientific American that he benefited from the publications of the E-infinity group. This is of course very regrettable but it is not the end of the world and we take it in the same spirit in which we took and endured many things before, mostly coming from the same sources. Before we turn our attention to the scientific mathematical part of our discussion, we must note with an even greater regret that Scientific American is not allowing many people to lodge comments on this site unless they are certain that there will be nothing in the comment revealing the connection to our work. In fact the Editors of Scientific American made a claim on behalf of Lisi which Dr. Lisi himself did not make, namely that Lisi pioneered what in their words they call ‘showcases striking patterns in particle physics’. This is quite unfair on behalf of whoever is responsible in Scientific American for writing that while ignoring the efforts of so many other people. Let us come now to scientific issues.

1. Lisi still does not recognize that there are 8 exceptional Lie symmetry groups and not only 5. He still thinks that the exceptional Lie symmetry groups are E8, E7, E6, F4, G2. The corresponding dimensions are 248, 133, 78, 52 and 14. This is wrong. There are 8 E-line exceptional Lie symmetry groups and when you add F4 and G2, then we have 10. However the E-line has only 8. El Naschie is not the first to find out this fact which is not well known. However El Naschie is the first to emphasize this fact and use it in physics. Lisi overlooks this because he does not appreciate the importance of what mathematicians call Dynkin diagrams. This is explained thoroughly in the following paper by Mohamed El Naschie ‘Exceptional Lie groups hierarchy and some fundamental high energy physics equations’, Vol. 35 (2008), p. 82-84, Chaos, Solitons & Fractals. This paper appeared on the net of Science Direct in 2007 before Lisi’s paper appeared. You can see clearly from this paper that there is an E5 which is identical to the unification group SO(10). In addition there is an E4 which is identical to the unification group SU(5). With unification we mean grand unification theories which only excludes gravity. The fact that these are exceptional groups is exciting and has many ramifications for E-infinity theory once they are extended transfinitely. It seems that the first person to notice that was Howard Georgi. The dimension of E5 is naturally 45 and that of E4 is 24 which matches the additional bosons of this unification theory. Later on El Naschie noticed that there is an E3, E2 and E1. Again based on the Dynkin program, E3 is nothing but SU(3) SU(2). It has a dimension 11. Then there is an E2 which is equal to SU(3) with the well known dimension 8 and finally we have E1 equal to U(1) with the dimension 1. All this may be found in many of El Naschie’s papers and there are a few nice summaries and review articles of which we give the following: Symmetry group prerequisite for E-infinity in high energy physics, CS&F, 35 (2008), p. 202-211, Average exceptional Lie and Coxeter group hierarchies with special reference to the standard model of high energy particle physics, CS&F, 37 (2008), p. 662-668, High energy physics and the standard model from the exceptional Lie groups, CS&F, 36 (2008), p. 1-17. All these papers were published on Science Direct at the beginning of 2007.

2. The most remarkable thing about the hierarchy of the E-line of exceptional Lie groups is that the sum of all its dimensions is exactly four multiplied with the inverse of the electromagnetic fine structure constant 137. This is by no means numerology. It shows that electromagnetism is an averaging over symmetries. We know from Feynman’s path integral that you can sum over paths. This could be extended to summing over topologies as used by many mathematical physicists. The same idea could be extended to summing over Lie symmetry groups. El Naschie is the first to find this explicit result. Please try it yourself and see that 248 + 133 + 78 + 45 + 24 + 11 + 8 + 1 = 548 = 4 multiplied with 137. To show that this has nothing to do with numerology is very simple. Just use the transfinite version of all these numbers. A transfinite version is always an integer plus a transfinite tail represented by an irrational number. The number of digits fixing an irrational number is infinitely large. Because of that, to fit together by a mere numerical coincidence would require a probability which is exactly equal to zero. A numerical coincidence is by virtue of this transfinite nature exclusive as an impossible event. There are far more physically accessible explanations for why this is not numerology. It is not numerology because there are theories behind it . The theory behind it also has another theory behind it. And all these theories fit together seamlessly. If this agreement is coincidence and numerology, then it would be advisable to study only the science of numerology, a proposition which we definitely refute.

3. Lisi acknowledges in his newest paper SO(10) and gives it a prominent place but he does not recognize or mention that it is equivalent to E5. The same may be said about SU(5) which he does not recognize as E4. However he follows an Italian colleague of his in appreciating SO(11) which he made only recently and is mentioned again in an article in Scientific American under the title ‘Rummaging for a final theory, September 2010. The first suggestion which makes use in this context of SO(11) came however from El Naschie. It is well documented in the literature on the subject. For instance in his paper From E-eight to E-infinity, CS&F, 35 (2008), p. 285-290 El Naschie draws attention to SO(11) with a dimension 55 which plays an important role in finding the total number of particles in the standard model as well as playing a role in Edward Witten’s 5-Bran theory with 528 particle-like states. Lisi does not make full use of these facts but he partially makes use of it.

4. Lisi never spoke about fiber bundles except in his last paper. Of course we appreciate very much fiber bundle theory because it is mathematically well developed. We dare however to say that transfinite set theory is far more mathematically developed and far more fundamental. Consequently fractals are far more developed and far more fundamental than fiber bundles. In fact fiber bundles is not simple enough nor is it complex enough. It moves from smooth manifold to somewhat hairy manifold. However it does not go to infinity like fractals. In a sense it is a middle of the way approach. In a sense it is not fish nor meat but something in between. We most definitely think that the natural geometry and the most sophisticated geometry required by high energy physics is fractals. That is to say transfinite set theory interpreted geometrically.

There are many other things which we would like to talk about but we leave that for future communications. Thank you.

E-infinity Group.

Dr. Cosmic Ray replied on Dec. 3, 2010 @ 22:52 GMT
Hi E-Infinity,

Check out the 60 or so comments at:

Lubos Motl and I have been discussing E8 some on Lubos' blogsite. Lubos points out that E8 doesn't have a complex representation, and therefore fails the test of a TOE from the start. I learned that argument about TOE's years ago, but thought that right-handed neutrinos could fix the problem. Still, the symmetry-breaking is wierd...

Fundamentally, I sill like E8 because of the Gosset lattice representation, and the recent discovery by Coldea et al reinforces Zamolodchikov's E8 model.

Hilbert space is infinite-dimensional. At some level, it may be appropriate to consider reality to be infinite dimensional, and try to describe the infinite in terms of the trans-finite. My biggest objection to E-Infinity is that the symmetry groups are fractals rather than integers. This implies fractal dimensions, fractal symmetries, fractal particles, (and how do complex representations work?)... Maybe that is OK in the proper framework (such as Nottale's scales?), but you have to admit that many Physicists will immediately reject the idea based on their own understanding (or misunderstanding?) of dimensions, symmetries and particles...

Don't hold your breath waiting for Lisi. He was recently quoted as "However, if people ask me questions about their pet theories, I'm out of here. (The worst thing about having a working theory of everything is that people want you to fix theirs.)"

It is ironic to me that Lisi started with a minimum 8-D E8, has progressed to a minimum 14-D Spin(11,3), and still won't embrace Strings...

Have Fun!

Anonymous wrote on Dec. 7, 2010 @ 06:44 GMT
The return of E-infinity

E-infinity is back
We will follow its track
Don't mention Ambjorn or Lisi
El naschie wouldn't take it easy
It is written on gold
E-infinity is a triple fold
After any time lapse
E-infinity can explain wave collapse
E-infinity is a true unification
but after a careful fuzzyfication
Choosing E-infinity or E eight
El naschie never tolerates
The great man starts to foliate
bringing eggs and doing omelet

E-infinity Group wrote on Dec. 10, 2010 @ 00:09 GMT
E-infinity communication No. 47
The role of dissipation in the ‘t Hooft-El Naschie-Ord quantum systems

Almost all realistic engineering systems have friction losses or any other kind of dissipation. As a structural engineer and applied mechanics scientist El Naschie dealt as long ago as 1976 with nonconservative, dissipative mechanical systems. In his paper in ‘Solid Mechanics Archives, Vol. 4, August 1979 (published by Stijthoff & Noordhoff Int. Publishers, Holland) he developed a finite element-like method (finite element is the engineer’s version of Regge calculus of general relativity). The method he employed, invented by Belgian engineer van den Dungen (Bull. Acad. Ray Belg. Sci Ser 1945 (31), pp. 659-668) consists of joining two dissipative systems, one with energy losses and another with energy gain (a so called flutter set), balancing each other and thus forming a conservative Hamiltonian system. In a paper published in 1995 in CS&F entitled “A note on quantum mechanics, diffusional interference and information” he extended his two dissipative systems forming one conservative system idea to the Schrödinger equation by two conjugate complex Schrödinger equations, one going forwards and the other going backwards in time (see CS&F, 5(5), pp. 881-884 (1995)). The importance of this paper was immediately recognized by Prof. G. Ord whose model is essentially very similar although it may not seem to be that way without careful examination. It all boiled down to the need for an additional negative sign which will become apparent later on. It could be that the Nobel Laureate became quite interested in nonlinear dynamics which always includes dissipation and a dissipative ‘strange attractor’ after meeting El Naschie on several occasions around the year 2000 including a conference in Riyadh and another in Cairo. It is clear that ‘t Hooft must have been thinking about these things for some time before that because he realized that the notion of time in relativity is fundamentally different from that in quantum mechanics and because he had a controversy with Steven Hawkings about the information paradox of black holes. Ultimately ‘t Hooft wrote several papers connecting the loss of information with dissipation and applied that to a new quantum mechanics which he called deterministic quantum mechanics. Similar to E-infinity ‘t Hooft used fluid turbulence as a paradigm for his theory. However at that time ‘t Hooft new nothing about quasi attractors in Hamiltonian systems because the VAK (the vague attractor of Kolmogorov) was not yet recognized by Mohamed El Naschie and thus not yet incorporated into his work. The VAK first conjectured as the stationary states of quantum mechanics by French topologist and the inventor of catastrophe theory, Rene Thom was considered much later (see for instance the paper “Strange non-dissipative and non-chaotic attractors and Palmer’s deterministic quantum mechanics” by G. Iovane and S. Nada published in CS&F, 42, pp 641-642 (2009). It is important to realize that although the VAK has no physical friction to give it stability, it has a mathematical substitute for the lack of friction, namely the irrationality of the winding number. Noting that the golden mean is the most irrational number, it follows that a golden mean winding number is the most stable orbit for a dynamic system and that is the reason why the mass of the elementary particles which could realistically be observed experimentally is always a function of the golden mean and its power. This also follows from von Neumann-Connes’ dimensional function. Dimensions are related to the coupling constant and these are in turn related to energy and thus the mass of elementary particles. In 2007 M. El Naschie gave a Lagrangian formulation to his basic 1979 idea in a paper entitled “On gauge invariance, dissipative quantum mechanics and self-adjoint sets. The paper was dedicated to his by that time very close friend Gerard ‘t Hooft in celebration of his 60th birthday (see CS&F, 32 (2007), pp. 271-273). In the meantime Ord refined his work by introducing the ani-Bernulli diffusion mimicking quantum mechanics (see for instance Annals of Physics, 324 (2009), pp. 1211-1218) where he refers as usual to the very same 1995 paper of El Naschie. The fact however is that all these different formulations are basically different faces of the same multi-dimensional coin. We can obtain the needed ‘negative’ sign by considering an adjoint flutter set with energy gain or a dissipative set with energy losses. We can also change a Bernulli random walk using zero and plus one to an anti-Bernulli random walk with 0, +1 and ̶ 1. We can introduce anti-commuting Grassmanian coordinates a proposed by ‘t Hooft and used in super string theory or we can go back to fundamentals and consider all the empty sets with their negative Menger-Urysohn dimensions as done by Mohamed El Naschie

E-infinity Group

E-infinity Group wrote on Dec. 10, 2010 @ 12:57 GMT
E-infinity communication No. 48
Fractal properties of quantum spacetime in the Perimeter Inst. of Theoretical Physics and El Naschie’s quantum group dimension

Dario Benedetti of the Perimeter Institute, partly founded due to the efforts of Prof. Lee Smolin, published a highly interesting paper in 2009 which is quite revealing. In this paper he seems to have carefully studied the literature used mainly by the E-infinity group, for instance what Mohamed El Naschie calls the Biedenharn conjecture. Benedetti’s paper is freely available on the net “Fractal properties of quantum spacetime”, arXiv: 0811.1396V2[hep-th], 25th March 2009. The main conclusion is that taking certain limits the dimensionality of spacetime, namely exact 4 as well as space only, namely exactly 3 may be obtained using quantum groups is obtained. To show how this follows immediately from a well known quantum group dimension when setting the monadic dimension of the atoms of the concerned space we do not need much nor even referring to old papers published by Mohamed El Naschie in many international journals. All what one needs is to go through the following steps.

Step one is to take any good book on quantum groups, for instance C. Kassel book “Quantum Groups” published by Springer 1995. Step two open page 364 and there you will find a formula for quantum dimension for a simple model given explicitly to be the said monade q to the power of n + 1 minus the same but with negative power ( ̶ n ̶ 1) then all divided by q minus the inverse of q. Setting the monade q = ϕ = the quantum dimension is found to be exactly 4. One could find the result of all dimensions, namely the space dimension 3 as well as the Hausdorff dimension 4.2367977 and R. Loll’s spectral dimension 4.01999 ≃ 4.02 in a similarly very simple way. Philosophical discussion of these dimensions were given by El Naschie in a paper written when he was in Cambridge, UK in 1998 (see Bio systems (an Elseiver journal), No. 46 (1998), pp. 4-46). This paper was entitled Dimensional symmetry breaking, information and fractal gravity in Cantorian space. A second paper is in a book published by Gordon and Breach “The quest for a unified theory of information”, Edited by Wolfgang Hofkirchner. The shortest and most condensed paper is “Quantum groups and Hamiltonian sets on nuclear spacetime Cantorian manifold” in CS&F, Vol. 10, No. 7, (1999), pp. 125-1256. In particular Table No. 1 compares all the various relevant dimensions. It is important to see how completely different theories lead to essentially similar conclusions. The only question is what is the most simple theory. We have no doubt that it is E-infinity because it is free from traditions and is obliged only to the mathematical logic with no regard to the political correctness of scientific grouping and science funding policy.

E-infinity group.

Anonymous wrote on Dec. 10, 2010 @ 17:39 GMT
The great days of CS&F has gone where El naschie could publish anything there. Today, El naschie is struggling to post his silly communications on various blogs. El naschie catches phrases from here and there and glues them together forming fantastic jokes. I really feel the sense of humor in his idiot style. But, the man can greatly improve himself to appear more serious even if it is superficially.

I suggest for the great man to write some communication about Schrodinger's cat and El naschie's rat. The great man is always anticipating naming things after him, which is a bad habit El naschie can't get rid of it. In this context, El nascie could talk about factuality, contextuality, duality, fractality and duality. Even holographic principle could be used to elucidate the fact that rat run faster than cat.

A final comment about Grassman variable you mentioned on communication 47, they are not used just for string theory but they are used in quantizing any theory containing fermions. Of course, I know that you mentioned string theory to pretend to be a man of great popular science culture. But, it would be better to mention that Grassman is in use for any theory containing fermions, at least you would appear a man of a broad culture.

E-infinity group wrote on Dec. 12, 2010 @ 15:51 GMT
E-infinity communication No. 52

Peter Woit “Not Even Wrong” is certainly right and wrong: An interview with Mohamed El Naschie

The following is a summary of an interview with Prof. Mohamed El Naschie conducted by Shayma, a journalist based in Cairo which will be published in full length in Arabic.

Dr. Woit’s book (published by Jonathan Cape, London (2006)) is an excellent popular account voicing strong dissent against the dominance of string theory. Never the less we think super strings are a very useful theory which has made and it still making important contributions. Dr. Woit made several important remarks and suggestions towards improving the standard model of high energy physics and reaching the number one goal of theoretical physics at present which is quantum gravity, i.e. unifying quantum mechanics and general relativity in one coherent and consistent theory. Other important aspects of modern quantum physics were omitted all together such as fractal spacetime and fractal gravity or addressed briefly and superficially like noncommutative geometry. Let us commence with the positive aspects of this important book which we believe should be read by every scientist working on modern physics.

The crucial point which Woit makes is related to the role of symmetry in quantum mechanics. He spells it out already in the introduction at the end of page 7 where he writes “The failure of the superstring theory programme can be traced to its lack of any fundamental new symmetry principle”. He then continues on page 8 by writing “…. Advances are only likely to come about if theoretist turn their attention away from this failed programme and (direct) it towards the difficult task of better understanding the symmetries of the natural world.” It is important to carefully analyze these statements of Woit summarizing all the wisdom of his book. To be sure, superstrings are making use of a very important symmetry principle which is new in physics although well known for a long time in mathematics, namely the exceptional Lie symmetry group E8. In fact superstrings take E8 E8 with dimension equal (2)(dim E8) = (20)(248) – 496. Thus this is not what Woit means. What we think he means is a completely new symmetry better suited to quantum gravity. Maybe he also means a larger group which is richer than E8. However E8 is the largest except for the monster group which is hardly understood as physics in general. If that is what Woit means then he should become a great friend of E-infinity theory and of Prof. El Naschie, that is if he took the time to read our work carefully and without prejudice. In E-infinity El Naschie, He, Crnjac and Iovane introduced much larger Lie symmetry groups than E8 by summing over all Lie symmetry groups. For instance the sum over the E-line gives a ‘fuzzy’ group, i.e. a ‘fractal’ group with 548 instead of only 496 as integer part of the dimension. During the 80’s and 90’s of the last century in what is now called the European Journal of Physics, El Naschie wrote several papers on ‘average’ symmetries. This symmetry is the symmetry of chaos and avoids the anomalies stemming from the clashes between external and internal symmetries. All that is discussed in many papers by El Naschie, particularly those related to knot theory, wild topology, von Neumann’s continuous geometry, K-theory and especially A. Connes’s noncommutative geometry and even the monster group. Woit repeats his important point regarding symmetry in the conclusion on page 266 where he write “I see as an important lesson that each generation of physicist since the advent of quantum mechanics seems to need to learn anew. This lesson is the importance of symmetry principles expressed in mathematical language of group representation theory…… The underlying source of the problems of superstring theory is that the theory is not built on a fundamental symmetry principle or expressed within the language of representation theory.” We in E-infinity theory fully endorse this point of view and believe that our reformulation of Feynman’s summing over paths theory to summing over dimensions and summing over Lie groups as well as two and three Stein spaces is the correct strategy and as such is in full harmony with the views expressed in Woit’s book.

Now we come to the point upon which we do not agree at all with Woit. E-infinity is a K-theory for spacetime. In less formal mathematical language we mainly use semi groups (being summed over groups). In popular language of computer science, we use fractal automaton. Fractal sets and K-theory are what noncommutative geometry is all about. Noncommutative geometry is not as popular as string theory. However this is not the mistake of noncommutative geometry as Woit very well knows. For this reason it is not adequate to give only a few lines in his book to noncommutative geometry. On page 256 Woit write “One other speculative research programme that deserves mention goes under the name of non-commutative geometry….”. We in E-infinity profoundly disagree. If you call noncommutative geometry speculative, what do you call superstrings with 10 spacetime dimensions of which we have only seen 3 and God knows what the fourth or the fifth could be. A. Connes is the most important mathematician alive working in physics besides Sir. R. Penrose. We are astonished about this evaluation of Woit for noncommutative geometry for another reason. In his Acknowledgement Dr. Woit thanks Sr. R. Penrose for critical help. But one of the most important and most famous contributions of Penrose is his well known Penrose tiling. This tiling is the best known example of a noncommutative space based on K-theory and it is the prototype of E-infinity space. On piece of interesting information mentioned in Woit’s book which most of us did not know is that E. Witten has no degree, not even a Bachelors in physics. He was a journalist but his father worked in relativity and was a professor. This speaks of course for Witten. However some silly people hold it against El Naschie that he is a structural engineer and has no degree in physics.

We sincerely hope there will be a new edition of Woit’s book and that noncommutative geometry, fractal spacetime and Penrose tiling will be given more attention. There are many papers published on Elsevier’s Science Direct in CS&F regarding Penrose tiling as an example for E-infinity and noncommutative geometry of which we recommend the following:

1. M.S. El Naschie: von Neumann geometry and E-infinity quantum spacetime. CS&F, Vol. 9(12), (1998), pp. 2023-2030.

2. M.S. El Naschie: Penrose universe and Cantorian spacetime as a model for noncommutative quantum geometry. CS&F, Vol. 9(6), (1998), pp. 931-933.

3. M.S. El Naschie: Penrose tiling, semi conduction and Cantorian 1/fa spectra in four and five dimensions. CS&F, Vol. 3(4), (1993), pp. 498-491.

In addition an important paper on average symmetry is

4. M.S. El Naschie: Average exceptional Lie and Coxeter group hierarchies with special reference to the standard model of high energy particle physics. CS&F, 37, (2008), pp. 662-668.

Jason wrote on Dec. 13, 2010 @ 14:02 GMT
"E. Witten has no degree, not even a Bachelors in physics. He was a journalist but his father worked in relativity and was a professor. This speaks of course for Witten. However some silly people hold it against El Naschie that he is a structural engineer and has no degree in physics."

That's not true. Witten has a 1976 PhD in physics under David Gross, 1994 Nobel laureate.

Meanwhile, your 1974 engineering PhD has mysteriously gone missing from University College London.

Anonymous wrote on Dec. 13, 2010 @ 19:14 GMT
Why one can't find the great man's thesis, maybe it was lost in a black hole. The thesis of the great man El naschie should be written in gold and to be available to every one. It is the thesis that led its author to golden physics, golden quantum field theory and golden differential geometry. In fact this is something at the level of Newton's principia even may be more important. El naschie's thesis offers gold while principia doesn't. I urge the great man just to put a coy of his valuable precious thesis on his website, or extract parts of it and send it as E-infinity communications. Soon and for sure, it comes the day where you can find his thesis on museums.

I urge the great man to give his views and plans for the next millennium as Hilbert did this for the twentieth century at its beginning, where Hilbert gave 23 open problems in mathematics. Man like El naschie is is more influential and smarter than Hilbert and can easily plan for the next coming thousand years - third millennium. El naschie could give one thousand and one open problems in mathematics and physics, nearly a problem for each year.

elnw wrote on Dec. 13, 2010 @ 19:39 GMT
This E-infinity group's claim:

"On piece of interesting information mentioned in Woit’s book which most of us did not know is that E. Witten has no degree, not even a Bachelors in physics. He was a journalist but his father worked in relativity and was a professor."

is false and deliberately degenerates the information about Witten's education found in Woit's book:

Shame on you, Great Man!

Odin replied on Feb. 7, 2011 @ 23:19 GMT
Mr. Elnw, you are banal beyond endurance. May God relieve you from your affliction.

elnw replied on Mar. 9, 2011 @ 09:46 GMT
Odin (or should I say E-infinity Group), you've finally found the courage to post your communications in this thread again. I thought you'd never recover from your last fiasco. LOL

E-infinity Group wrote on Feb. 7, 2011 @ 23:12 GMT
26th January, 2011.
E-infinity communication No. 77

A moonshine conjecture from E-infinity (number theoretical motivation)

One of Alexander Grothendieck’s greatest insights was to follow Andre Weil’s hint at the deep connection between topological characteristic of a variety and its number theoretical aspect, i.e. its diaphonic aspects. Topologizing physics within a number theoretical framework seems to be an obvious characteristic of El Naschie’s E-infinity theory.

In the present communication we discuss a surprising relation between the totality of all Stein spaces, the compact and non-compact Lie symmetry groups on the one side and super string theory, path integral and the summing over dimensions procedure of E-infinity theory as well as the inverse fine structure constant = 137. The relation seems at first sight so bizarre and unreal that it is justifiably called the moonshine conjecture. In fact it has some similarity with the original moonshine conjecture and it is best to start by introducing the relation between the monster symmetry group and the coefficient of the j-function. The story starts when it was noticed that the minimal dimension for the monster is only one less than the first coefficient in the j-function. Thus we have D(min monistor) = b ̶ 1 = 196884 = 196883. The relation was clarified and the conjecture proven by Borcherds, a student of Conway (see El Naschie’s paper on the subject, CS&F, 32, (2007), pp. 383-387 as well as his paper “Symmetry groups prerequisite for E-infinity”, CS&F, 35, (2008), pp. 202-211 as well as “On the sporadic 196884-dimensional group, strings and E-infinity spacetime”, CS&F, 10(6), (1999), pp. 1103-1109.

We start by observing that the sum of the dimensions of the 17 two and three Stein spaces is exactly 686. This is equal 5 times 137 plus one. On the other hand the sum of the dimensions of the 12 compact and non-compact Lie symmetry groups is 1151. This is one short of 1152 which is 9 times 128, the electroweak inverse coupling of electromagnetics. This value (9)(128) = 1152 plays an important role in calculating the quantum states spectrum of the Heterotic string theory as can be seen in the excellent book of M. Kaku. Adding 686 to 1151 one finds 1837. Next we consider the total number of dimensions of the 12 non-compact Lie groups which comes to 1325. On the other hand the total number of the 8 non-compact 2 and 3 Stein spaces is given by 527. This is one short of Witten’s 528 states of a 5-Bran theory in 11 dimensions. Adding 527 and 1325 one finds 1852. The grand total is thus 1837 + 1852 = 3689. Now we embed 3689 in the ten dimensions of super strings and find that 3689 + 10 = 3699. Here comes the first incredible surprise because 3699 = (27)(137) = 3699 where = 137.

The second surprise in when we consider the “energy” stored in the “isometries” of the symmetry groups. Starting with the curvature of E-infinity spacetime = 26 + k we see that ( )( ) = (26 + k)(26 + k) which comes to 685.5. This is almost equal to 686 of the sum over all two and three Stein spaces. This is one of the best and simplest justifications ever for the theory of summing over symmetry group dimensions. Next we consider the intrinsic dimension of E7. This is dim E8(intrinsic) = 57. The transfinitely corrected compactified value is 57 + 1 + 3k 58.5. The energy is thus given by (58.54101966)2. This gives us 3427.050983. Here comes our next and final surprise for this communication. Dividing the energy by 25 one finds = 137.082039. The numerics indicate that there is indeed a deep connection between energy, symmetry and the electromagnetic fine structure constant. Members of the E-infinity group may like to think about a water tight proof for the above as well as pointing to more intricate relations.

E-infinity Group.

Jason wrote on Mar. 28, 2011 @ 20:55 GMT
Come on, let's get this thread going again. It's just had a three-year anniversary! Any E-infinity group members out there? Tell us what's on your minds.

Jason wrote on Jun. 17, 2011 @ 00:22 GMT
El Naschie vs. Nature BOMBSHELL!

Anon wrote on Jul. 7, 2012 @ 22:39 GMT
Elnaschie (the great man) has lost his case against nature and he was completely screwed and fingered up by nature.

Congratulation for Elnaschie and we hope he is now pleased by being wedged by nature. But the great man can save himself handling rope with knots by his golden fingers.

It is interesting to read the judgement report (91 pages!!!)
Translate English to Arabic

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


  1. FQXi395 updated! The first comment in over a year!

  2. Hay, Good news for all. Are you like to buy Candle, Food, Cosmetics? I know All people like this kind of product. It is healthy and out of danger. You can use this product.