The ones about El Naschie are shown below. They are reminiscent of the famous wall-of-text "E-infinity communications" from FQXi-395 and welle::erd.ferkel, but pre-date those by at least eight months. They also predate the era in which El Naschie Watch began taking the great man's sockpuppets to task over their pathological inability to use correct punctuation, particularly apostrophes, after which they greatly cleaned up their act.

The proof of the sockpuppet equation

is left as an exercise for the reader.

**18. Jazz 05:36 PM 10/4/08**

Regarding the comments of Dr. Wagnert, I am inclined to agree that the idea of periodic big bang and big crush giving birth to a big bounce is a relatively old one. What is important however is the mathematics and as in most articles written for the wider public, there is no mathematics in Scientific American publications. Never the less the idea of space atoms, unlike what Dr. Wagnert implies, is not new either. As I understood from the article of Dr. Ambjorn and Dr. Loll from University of Utrecht, the atoms of space and time are very special kind of atoms which are called in mathematical jargon, fractal or Cantor sets. Again, from what I have read on the other site of Scientific American, the idea of modeling spacetime using these Cantor sets atoms goes back to an Egyptian scientist Mohamed El Naschie. I heard about him only recently but it would be interesting to see if his theory would support the work of Dr. Martin Bojowald. It seems a great deal of waste to create whole universes only to destroy them again. If nature behaved in this way then it is working according to the principle of maximum inefficiency. In such a universe Kant should have renamed his monumental work Critique of Pure Nonsense rather than Critique of Pure Reason. But who ever said that our universe is governed by reason. If you are in any about that just have a good look at every Head of State on this planet.

**19. Dunham 05:54 PM 10/4/08**

Regarding the comments of Dr. Wagnert, I am inclined to agree that the idea of periodic big bang and big crush giving birth to a big bounce is a relatively old one. What is important however is the mathematics and as in most articles written for the wider public, there is no mathematics in Scientific American publications. Never the less the idea of space atoms, unlike what Dr. Wagnert implies, is not new either. As I understood from the article of Dr. Ambjorn and Dr. Loll from University of Utrecht, the atoms of space and time are very special kind of atoms which are called in mathematical jargon, fractal or Cantor sets. Again, from what I have read on the other site of Scientific American, the idea of modeling spacetime using these Cantor sets atoms goes back to an Egyptian scientist Mohamed El Naschie. I heard about him only recently but it would be interesting to see if his theory would support the work of Dr. Martin Bojowald. It seems a great deal of waste to create whole universes only to destroy them again. If nature behaved in this way then it is working according to the principle of maximum inefficiency. In such a universe Kant should have renamed his monumental work Critique of Pure Nonsense rather than Critique of Pure Reason. But who ever said that our universe is governed by reason. If you are in any about that just have a good look at every Head of State on this planet.

**27. Dubois 05:23 PM 10/7/08**

I must admit that I have also never heard anybody seriously claiming that Einstein discovered the atom. The atom of light, that is to say the photon, was discovered by Einstein. We have really to say rediscovered. Photon or the quanta of light was postulated long ago by Newton. However when the wave nature of light was discovered, Newton s theory of light particles was discredited. Only later with the advent of quantum mechanics did we get what is known as the wave particle duality. This is however not only characteristic of light but of all quantum particles. The entire story is well documented experimentally in the two-slit experiment with quantum particles. The resolution of this paradox constitutes part of the work of the Egyptian Mohamed El Naschie whose name was mentioned earlier on here on this site. As I understand it El Naschie was able to resolve this problem because as correctly mentioned earlier on also on this site, he discovered the atoms not of matter but of spacetime. These atoms are something considered by physicists to be esoteric mathematics. This mathematic is Cantor sets. A Cantor set normally has a dimension called Hausdorff dimension but it does not have a measure. This means it does not have a length or a volume. This seems to be crazy physically speaking but mathematically it makes a great deal of sense. And strange enough more often than not, what ever makes a great deal of mathematical sense turns out at the end to make a great deal of physical sense.

I was elated today to hear that Nambu, Kobayashi and Maskawa got the Nobel prize in physics for 2008. Particularly Nambu got his Nobel prize for a mathematical idea, namely symmetry breaking. Some may think that this is only mathematics but symmetry is an all embracing principle. Some may have found it also esoteric that the dimension of the exceptional Lie group E8E8 is equal to the number of massless gauge bosons in super string theory. How could we equate symmetry with particles? I do not think this is difficult after general relativity where Einstein equated matter with geometry. I think in time the unification monopole of tHooft, the E8 symmetry group of Green and Schwarz and Mohamed El Naschie s Cantor sets atoms of spacetime will prove to be indispensable physical concepts although originating in mathematics. As a mathematician I can only congratulate the Nobel Committee on their choice for the 2008 Nobel prize in physics.

**33. Dubois in reply to Frank in Illinois 03:10 PM 10/8/08**

I am only a mathematician but I could answer Frank s question. It was Kurt G�del who found a solution for Einstein s equation of general relativity in which there are closed time-like curves. If a time-like curve is closed that would mean that you could travel back in time. G�del is known for his work in logic. He is probably the most famous logician and mathematician of the last century. Many people do not know that G�del was actually a physicist. That is probably why he became a close friend of Einstein when they met again in Princeton. G�del is Austrian so they spoke together in German. G�del gave this paper as a present for Einstein s birthday. I read a paper by Mohamed El Naschie about G�del s theorem and chaos theory. It was published some eight years ago in the Journal of the Franklin Inst. in the USA. I also read later on another paper by the same Author published in Chaos, Solitons & Fractals about the connection between G�del s theory of gravity and high energy particle physics. Now if you can control time then in a sense you can control gravity. This is born by the so called Feynman-El Naschie conjecture. It says that gravity may be equated to fractal time. That is to say the origin of gravity is in the fractal flow of time. El Naschie was inspired by the work of Feynman on the subject. Feynman said that there are similarities between van der Walles forces and gravity. These forces are due to unbalance in the equilibrium between the different molecules creating fluctuation which is perceived as a force. El Naschie reasoned that the fluctuation of fractal time has a similar effect producing gravity or more correctly, producing quantum gravity which manifests itself later on as classical gravity. I cannot remember where I read all that. It may well be on Elsevier s Science Direct.

As for the supernova (ABK007 comment), this is a huge explosion but in a black hole not even light could escape so I am not sure what ABK007 means. Of course, as I said, I am a mathematician and the sequence to a black hole starts from red giants to a white dwarf which cools down and starts gravitational collapse into a black hole from which even light cannot escape, as I said earlier. I hope this is helpful.

**60. Noyes 11:32 AM 11/5/08**

Prof. Khory asked me to convey these comments to Scientific American:

My comments center around a single point. It is the case that either Ambjorn, Loll and Jurkiewicz work is another formulation of Mohamed El Naschie s theory using computer simulation then they should have mentioned him and said so or it is a completely new theory reaching the same conclusion as El Naschie and then they should also have said so.

In a nutshell, and avoiding too much technical jargon the relationship between the two theories are as follows. Repeating any process again and again to come near to an end state is called iteration. Constructing a Cantor set by deleting the middle third of a line segment again and again is also an iteration. The amusing fact is that you could iterate anything and end with a Cantor set. You could iterate snakes or frogs and the limit set would be a Cantor set. El Naschie used a beautiful trick. He started from the end, namely the Cantor limit set. That way he could ignore all the highly complicated nonlinear equations leading to this set. In the language of nonlinear dynamics, he started from a universality akin to that of Mitchell Feigenbaum. I suspect El Naschie learned this trick from the well known Russian/French topologist Alexei Sossinksy who published the idea in a 1999 book Editions du Seuil-Paris, France. In fact El Naschie used the same illustration of Sossinksy in his 2002 paper Quantum loops and fat Cantor sets in transfinite high energy physics which can be found on Elsevier s Science Direct. He combined it with Feigenbaum s period doubling and modified it to knots doubling ramifying at a Cantor set in his Fig. 7 of his highly cited paper Elementary prerequisites for E-infinity (Recommended background readings in nonlinear dynamics, geometry and topology), 2006 again on Elsevier s Science Direct. Then came a crucial point for the connection with the old work of Ambjorn on triangulation and Regge calculus. In his paper VAK, vacuum fluctuation and the mass spectrum of high energy particle physics, 2003 Science Direct, El Naschie gives the connection to the Klein modular curve triangular tiling. In Fig. 2 of this paper he considered both the approximate solution using Klein s original curve and the exact transfinite solution using Klein s compactified curve. Here comes the connection to Ambjorn s work who at that time was not working with Renate Loll who was busy with loop quantum gravity and super strings. Ambjorn starts from an approximate solution corresponding to the non-compactified Klein original curve. Subsequently he feeds his approximately correct equation and his approximately correct geometry into a highly efficient computer. In a sense, and loosely speaking, the computer iterates the equation, at just the geometry and fractalises it until it converges slowly but surely to the exact solution of El Naschie. This effect was illustrated by many calculations many years ago by El Naschie to show that his result and the old classical Ambjorn result are related. As I have already said at that time Ambjorn did not make any reference to fractal spacetime or modeling spacetime using Cantor sets. In fact I know of many papers in which El Naschie refers to Ambjorn s work on triangulation and indirectly drawing his attention to the fact that this is essentially a computerized fractal spacetime theory. I was only many years later that Ambjorn teamed up with R. Loll and Jurkiewicz and worked together in Utrecht, a well known Centre of Excellence. To our knowledge however only their Scientific American article was formulated in the language of El Naschie s Cantor sets and Nottale and Ord s fractal spacetime. By contrast the mathematics, or more accurately, the computer simulation remains the same. Of course they employed now a far more efficient modern computing but the procedure is essentially the same if we disregard their arguments about causality and the arrow of time. Many have commented about salient aspects of this work. However nothing is more surprising and revealing as a recent paper of Prof. L. Marek-Crnjac A Feynman path integral-like method for deriving the four dimensionality of spacetime from first principles, 2008 available on Science Direct. Prof. Crnjac derives the exact dimensionality 4.02 using El Naschie s theory without a computer. I was cheered by the fact that a group calling themselves E-infinity fans posed on this site on 11.01/08 at 08.21 p.m. a rather clearly written comment attesting to the same things which I have explained here. The result 4.02 is one of the most remarkable results ever published in theoretical physics for the following reason. Ambjorn used a highly accurate numerical simulation. If 4.02 is the topological dimension of spacetime, he could have increased the accuracy and easily reached 4.0000000. This is so because any deviation from four dimensionality must be enormously small. 0.02 is not a small number compared to four. Consequently this is not a topological dimension. Second this is not the Hausdorff dimension of quantum spacetime. The exact Hausdorff dimension of quantum spacetime was calculated many years ago by Prof. S. Al Athel, the then Minister of Science & Technology of Saudi Arabia as well as Prof. Mohamed El Naschie and many others of their co-workers. Never the less 4.02 is an exact result with a definite meaning consistent with El Naschie s theory and could be obtained only in two ways. Either by a theory which does not have a trace of continuity in it like the Cantorian theory of El Naschie or alternatively by a superbly refined computer simulation such as that published in Scientific American by Ambjorn and his co-workers. In a sense my nutshell has exploded beyond the nut and became almost a short article but my hope is that I could contribute constructively to this controversy.

Andrei Khory

**65. Noyes 11:11 AM 11/7/08**

Without disagreeing with Andrei Khory on any point of his admirable explanation of El Naschie s work, I would just like to fill in some details and expand some points. First J. Ambjorn wrote two books as long ago as 1977 Quantum Geometry, published by Cambridge Press and the second one The geometry of dynamical triangulation, published by Springer. The Scientific American paper is mainly a polishing of what is in these two books couched in the fractal spacetime and Cantor sets general philosophy and terminology of Mohamed El Naschie, Garnet Ord and Laurent Nottale. For instance the inequality given in the Springer book on page 53 and denoted equation 3.35 could be made to an equality leading to El Naschie s Hausdorff dimension 4.2360679. The very same result is found using the non-commutative geometry of French Field Medalist Alan Connes. On page 506 of Connes book Non-commutative geometry, published by Academic Press in 1990, he gave at the bottom of the page an equation for a dimension in terms of a Lambda naught. Setting the Lambda equal the Hausdorff dimension of a random triadic Cantor set one finds the Hausdorff dimension 4.236067977. This all confirms El Naschie s view point that 4.02 is neither the topological nor the ordinary Hausdorff dimension of fractal spacetime.

I apologize for the length of my comments in such an historic week. In his Editorial El Naschie said that America has elected science and scientific thinking when they elected Barak Obama as their President.

Does El Naschie pay these people by the post or are they just mentally deranged?

ReplyDeleteMany people wonder the same thing. My opinion is that the sock puppets are not paid, but are motivated by self-interest in propping up their leader; or, sometimes, by genuine affection. Zahy thinks some of the sockpuppet screeds are authored by the great man himself. Several of their identities are known to El Naschie Watch. Their writing styles are unique and recognizable.

ReplyDelete