MATHEMATICAL WEB: Visual representation of the Lie group E8. Such complex symmetrical mathematical structures could help researchers weave together the physics of particles and forces.
Image: Jgmoxness/wiki commons
-
Gravity's Engines
We’ve long understood black holes to be the points at which the universe as we know it comes to an end. Often billions of times more massive than the Sun, they...
Read More »
Turning the clock back by half a century could be the key to solving one of science’s biggest puzzles: how to bring together gravity and particle physics. At least that is the hope of researchers advocating a back-to-basics approach in the search for a unified theory of physics.
In July mathematicians and physicists met at the Banff International Research Station in Alberta, Canada, to discuss a return to the golden age of particle physics. They were harking back to the 1960s, when physicist Murray Gell-Mann realized that elementary particles could be grouped according to their masses, charges and other properties, falling into patterns that matched complex symmetrical mathematical structures known as Lie (“lee”) groups. The power of this correspondence was cemented when Gell-Mann mapped known particles to the Lie group SU(3), exposing a vacant position indicating that a new particle, the soon to be discovered “Omega-minus,” must exist.
During the next few decades, the strategy helped scientists to develop the Standard Model of particle physics, which uses a combination of three Lie groups to weave together all known elementary particles and three fundamental forces: electromagnetism; the strong force, which holds atomic nuclei together; and the weak force, which governs radioactivity. It seemed like it would only be a matter of time before physicists found an overarching Lie group that could house everything, including gravity. But such attempts came unstuck because they predicted phenomena not yet seen in nature, such as the decay of protons, says physicist Roberto Percacci of the International School for Advanced Studies in Trieste, Italy.
The approach fell out of favor in the 1980s, as other candidate unification ideas, such as string theory, became more popular. But inspired by history, Percacci developed a model with Fabrizio Nesti of the University of Ferrara in Italy and presented it at the meeting. In the model, gravity is contained within a large Lie group, called SO(11,3), alongside electrons, quarks, neutrinos and their cousins, collectively known as fermions. Although the model cannot yet explain the behavior of photons or other force-carrying particles, Percacci believes it is an important first step.
One fan of Percacci’s work is A. Garrett Lisi, an independent researcher with a Ph.D. in physics from the University of California, San Diego. Lisi hit the headlines in 2007 with his own attempt to embed a “theory of everything” in the most complex and elegant Lie group, called E8. Percacci’s work, Lisi says, “provides a nice unification of gravity and the Standard Model.”
Lisi’s ideas revived mathematicians’ interest in this historical approach to physics, which led to the Banff meeting, says Gregg J. Zuckerman, an expert on E8 at Yale University. Lisi’s attempt, he adds, “represents a more general ideal about returning to Lie groups as a way to unify gravity with the Standard Model.”
Others are taking this ideal forward in different ways. Rather than thinking of Lie groups as boxes that can hold forces and particles, mathematician Tevian Dray and physicist Corinne Manogue of Oregon State University are tearing them apart and examining one of their mathematical building blocks—an eight-dimensional number system called octonions. (Everyday real numbers are one-dimensional, whereas complex numbers, which have both real and imaginary parts, are two-dimensional.)
Many mathematicians shy away from octonions because they do not obey all the standard laws of algebra, Dray observes, so the order in which you perform mathematical operations can give you different answers. Dray and Manogue have turned this seemingly unpalatable asymmetry to their advantage to describe the biased properties of some particles. For instance, octonions naturally reproduce neutrinos’ puzzling “left-handedness”—that is, their intrinsic quantum “spin” is always oriented in one sense relative to their motion.
See what we're tweeting about
55 Comments
Add Commenti am not commenting, but i want to thank you for my learning that there are number systems higher dimensional than one. Of course there cannot be something more common than thanks, notwithstanding, and even if i never repeat.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe Percacci/Nesti SO(11,3) model does not take full advantage of the octonionic structure of E8. When Lisi attempts to embed the Percacci/Nesti model inside E8, the result, as Garibaldi shows and Lisi acknowledges, predicts mirror fermion particles that have "... nearly been ruled out by experiment ...".
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAlthough Lisi still holds out hope that "... mirror fermions could have evaded notice if they are heavier than commonly thought. ...", if they are not found in the near future by the Large Hadronic Collider, Lisi's embedding of Percaci/Nesti into E8 seems unlikely to be a successful physics model.
However, there may be other useful alternative ways to use E8 to carry out Zuckerman's idea "... about returning to Lie groups as a way to unify gravity with the Standard Model ...".
One such suggestion is outlined on my web site at tony5m17h.net/E8ideas.pdf
The thing about mathematics is you can model far more systems that are not compatible with reality than the few that are compatible with reality. Maybe no amount of complexity will ever explain why like particles repel and opposite particles attract beyond the fact that they just do so.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSome observations may be measured but never explained with any degree of certainty. Other things may be happening beyond the range of observation and only the correct mathematical model could actually predict the emergent field effects that can be observed. In that realm we should be guided by some basic principles that are currently being actively ignored.
The first basic principle is that no truth depends upon a falsehood to make it true. The corollary is that truth is all of one cloth; that truth never contradicts itself. In a contradiction either one thing is true or the other thing is true or they are both wrong and you have to look for truth elsewhere. Look elsewhere if your theory requires contradictions.
Patents are intellectual property; hence a gene patent does not give its holder ownership of the gene, but of the new ideas concerning it. This is true of all patents. So, unless one is against all patents, there is no reason to be prejudiced
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisagainst genes, or for that matter, software, mathematics, or laws of nature.
Natures Natural Universal Evelutionalry Process is controled by one Force. It is at the Quantum level. This one Force produces three Forces. Einstein new that whoever discovered these Forces would know everything. To a point, he was correct. You also need to know the mechanism by which Nature applies these Forces. Einstein believed he was wrong with his Idea of a Statice Univers, but he was wrong to believe that, he was in fact correct. Friedman was also correct with his exspanding Universe, by the way, the Universe is also elongating. There is two separate process going on in Natures Universal Evelutionary Process that enables this to happen. For the time being I will add one more thing, the main reason, why, for the past 400 years plus, that the best brains in the world have not been able to work it our is because of our mathmatics, you cannot solve a mathmatical problem when Infinities are involved, I solved the problem unsing only Logic and Reasoning, had I tried to do it any other way, it would have not been posible to arrive at a conclusion.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFascinating stuff I will have to learn more. I'm also happy that this article has no politics in it. Science the main reason I started reading Sciam and politics the reason I quite Paying for Sciam magazine. thats a hint for Sciam to return to science.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI forgot to ask are there any books on this subject that an amateur scientist could read
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFoolish Earthlings!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis is all covered in our book "To serve man"!
A ha ha! A ha ha! A ha ha!
Kang and Kodos
Rigel VII
hereticoftruth - Somewhat along the same lines, people strongly tend to falsely assign causation to any identified correlation among characteristic properties.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThat the identified fundamental particles that appear to exhibit the property of mass cause the effect of gravitation is not self-evident.
IMO, it is quite possible that a separate physical element produces both the effects identified as particle mass and the gravitational effect.
A overlooked property of fundamental particles that is strongly (negatively) associated with mass and gravitation is their directed motion and effective velocity.
I suggest that the separate, external 'emission energy' associated with fundamental particles, producing their directional velocity is a physical component that, when its momentum is absorbed, is categorized as mass. When its energy is expressed as motion, fundamental particles exist only as wave manifestations.
Fundamental particles of varying masses exhibit varying frequency distributions of particle/wave state manifestations. As the materialize as particles, they are directionally stationary but are able to spin. This particle state spin alters the wave state direction of motion. As a result, the zero mass photon only manifests as a particle when its energy is absorbed upon detection: its direction of motion continuously reflects is emission direction. The high mass quark is more often manifested in the particle state, producing a continuously changing direction of short burst motions, or 'jiggling'. This is the motion imparted to atoms by the nuclear mass of their quarks.
The external aggregation of the unexpressed potential velocity of mass, internally directed, produces the localized external contraction of energy within the medium of spacetime that is identified as the gravitational effect.
Since all attempts at joining relativity to quantum mechanics keep failing, maybe the right thing is try to join quantum mechanics to relativity instead.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOr the Theory of Everything may turn out to be something completely different than both, like a type of Cellular Automaton.
A Unification of Gravitational Physics with Particle Physics has been developed. It is published by E C Chandler - ISBN 978-0-9508-129-1-4.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI have doubts about this approach because Einstein's 1916 General Relativity is simply the local gauge theory of the non-compact 4-parameter space-time translation group T4. The compensating gauge potentials analogous to the electromagnetic potentials of the locally gauged internal U1 group are the four Cartan tetrad 1-form fields describing free-floating geodesic paths in curved spacetime. Therefore, no compact large internal Lie group can explain gravity. Of course, if Lisi et-al's group is non-compact maybe it can. I have not looked at this work in detail.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs the Book says when the God says "let there be" it (be)comes. I think the cosmologists call this "symmetry breaking" when somehow particles and anti-particles do not cancel out each other (as they do in our high energy experiments) but let some particles continue to become reality. This particles work by the rules of gravity, which is another name for cause and effect that we also call time. However the energy that (be)come holds and binds all of them together , which is called universe and explains quantum effects and dark energy. Our brains work in binary systems (yes or no), but in the universe there is only yes, so it is beyond our intelligent comprehension, but it can be understood by a different kind of intellect (that was a gift).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhen you say "the Book", you imply the clan mythologies of a comparatively primitive iron age tribe and their attempt to belittle all the grea civilisations that were surrounding them?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"When you say "the Book", you imply the clan mythologies of a comparatively primitive iron age tribe and their attempt to belittle all the grea civilisations that were surrounding them?"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI guess we all need a security blanket. The above statement would be yours.
tonysmith: Thanks for the expansion on the article. I look forward to reading your website, even though it may exceed my theoretical and mathematical capabilities.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishereticoftruth: Im with you on all that except: "The first basic principle is that no truth depends upon a falsehood to make it true." You may have ignored the all too common concept of paradox such as Epimenides (Greek philosopher, 6th century BCE) illustrated. A paraphrase: "This sentence is false.". Point being 'true' and 'false' can be very elusive except under the most simplified constraints.
In the highly non-intuitive and extrordinarily complex attempts to equivalate our math with our perception of reality that are described by quantum mechanics and relativity, the true and false issues become mute. What matters most in the search for a unified theory is "Does it work?" If I understand what I've read about such things, quantum mechanics and relativity are not 'true' descriptions of reality but pragmatic theories that allow us to use what we know. You speak to this very idea in the second sentence of your post. We may never know what gravity is, but we are getting pretty good at using it.
tichead - The utilitarian aspect of theory is, ahem, quite useful, but the fundamental purpose of scientific inquiry is to better understand our universe.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn a strictly utilitarian sense general relativity's theory of gravitation offered little useful benefit over classical mechanics', primarily because of its difficult of use. The inverse-square method of estimating gravitation's effects is still most widely used even by scientists.
While GR extended gravitational theory to effects on light and introduced its mathematical relationship with spacetime, it also confused humanity by describing a physical effect imparted to an abstract dimensional construct. Matter linearly traverses curved spacetime?
IMO there is still something very real that has not yet been described. I suggest that there is more to theory than mathematical utility. As I understand, the highly successful standard model of particle physics contains whole sections dedicated to calculating parameters that represent nothing, really. It might even prove useful to better understand what is being so usefully determined.
jtdwyer: True, pure understanding can have personal attributes regardless of whether it has actual useful benefits. I would, however, relegate such to the spiritual as opposed to the scientific realm. I personnally find great spiritual peace from my engagement with and often dubious understanding of the scientific realm. Commonality between the two is abundant and the more I understand about science the greater my interest in the spiritual implications. And much can said about the purely academic pursuit of scientific understanding as that seems to be where many of the great strides forward originate.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe main purpose of such understanding is and always will be utilitarian. It is unavoidable. We learn stuff, we use what we learn, we learn more stuff, ad infinitum...
The Large Hadron Collider was not built purely for the knowledge it will provide. It was built to complete the work of Murray Gell-Mann as the Higgs boson will 'fill in the last blank' of the Standard Model thus validating the usefulness of the theories of quantum mechanics. Should this 'particle of mass' (I know, bad desciption) be discovered and the properties verified, then many of the existing Unification theories based purely on math and human genius will no longer be valid and others will rise to prominence. And if the reverse is the result (no Higgs here people, move along), then the same will happen for different reasons.
As to relativity not being useful to humanity due to the complexity, I would recommend we shoot down all the GPS satellites as soon as possible because they are very expensive junk cluttering up otherwise necessary orbits. Quantum mechanics, who needs it? We got along fine without quantum tunneling in microprocessors. How's your online banking working? Been hacked yet? Yep, quantum encryption.
Pure science for the sake of knowledge and understanding is as useful as applied science. As for the purely abstract with no immediate utility, I would say, "give it time, that turkey ain't cooked yet".
tichead - Sorry, I must have miscommunicated.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnalytical models produce useful results without fully understanding the physical processes at work. True simulation models represent the physical processes contributing to final product.
My assertion is that knowledge of actual physical processes at work provide additional useful information, not that such knowledge endows one with spiritual enlightenment.
I did not intend to be so blunt in criticizing GR's gravitation's usefulness, but to point out that its practical usefulness is limited by its computational complexity. As for abstraction, as I understand, GR describes spacetime as an abstract set of dimensional coordinates, not as a physical entity, yet it is the effect of objects of mass on those coordinates that determines the motions objects.
As I understand, is is generally considered that there may be something wrong with an analytic model that, despite being incredibly accurate, is not understood by its developers. This is the case with the standard model of quantum physics.
As I understand, quantum encryption is still a pipe dream. I codeveloped a mainframe security system software product in the early 1980s, wrote 'Modeling Large IMS Systems Using Commercial Analytic Queueing Model Software Products, Proceedings of the Computer Measurement Group, 1984, and spent more than 20 years as the principal planner for the world's largest transaction processing computer center.
In my opinion, our reliance on analytical models that incompletely represent actual physical processes, despite providing very useful predictive results, will eventually burn us when applied to varying conditions not correctly represented. IMO, it's quite likely many of the current 'great problems' of physics are the products of precisely these conditions.
As far as I understand you know how things work in quantum models, could you explain to me how quantum computers work considering the fact that while the computer language is based on yes or no, quantum states are determined after the observation (cat paradox), thus we have only probabilities hence no definitive language.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI believe you have just highlighted a macro system in quantum superposition. It is both true and false at the same time. Congratulations on the development of Quantum Language which is both untrue and true simulaneously.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisUnfortuntely, I regret to inform you that there is clan of elusive people (often known as politicians) who have previously published on the topic of Quantum Language.
excellent article and and excellent comments....i look forward to seeing these other(older) paths explored....
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisgesimsek - If you were referring to me, I have no qualifications in the field of quantum physics. I am highly experienced with large scale computer technologies. As I understand, there is no definitive specification of quantum computing as there are no functioning quantum computers.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMy understanding is that there is common conception that some quantum signal switching capability would allow increased logic circuit miniaturization and tremendous performance benefits, but these expectations are all based only on general conceptions of how a quantum scale computer might function.
Computer logic circuits can perform hundreds of specific functions, from adding two numbers to comparing text strings. Based on the results of those functions, the path of program execution can be conditionally redirected. Common computer procedural languages are typically composed of a set of statement specifications, each of which invokes a set of hardware circuitry level instructions.
In theory there are many methods that could be employed to implement a computer architecture, not all are digital. In some sense the hydraulic circuits of automatic automotive transmissions can be considered analog computers, although they are increasingly being replaced with digital electronic computers to control gear (ratio) selection.
IMO, some kind of general purpose quantum computing might become commercially viable sometime in the next several decades, should we live so long. Of course, some unbelievable breakthrough could occur tonight. In that case, quantum computing may become viable in about one decade...
Nobody has mentioned Mohamed El Naschie yet, so let me get the ball rolling.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWe have here a Scientific American article that talks about E8, Garret Lisi, and Theories of Everything. And yet neither the author Zeeya Merali, nor any of the commenters, have mentioned the paradigm-shifting work of the world-famous Egyptian physicist Mohamed El Naschie! That's shocking. Dr. El Naschie is perhaps best known for his "E-infinity theory" which is a Cantorian fractal theory of space-time. It was stunningly verified by the recent discovery of the Golden Mean in quantum mechanics in the experiment of Coldea et al.
This failure to credit Dr. El Naschie is not a one-off. Renate Loll et al published an article in Scientific American a couple of years ago which also, I am sad to report, did not credit El Naschie.
H0sten - I've never heard of El Naschie before, but then I'm no scholar. Searching Wikipedia, I found a mention in the entry for the Dutch publisher, Elsevier, for the publication "Chaos, Solitons & Fractals" (reference citations omitted):
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"There has been some recent controversy over the journal Chaos, Solitons & Fractals. There is speculation that the editor-in-chief, M. El Naschie, is misusing his power to publish his work, without peer review. The journal has published 322 papers with El Naschie as author since 1993. The last issue in December 2008 featured 5 of his papers. The controversy has been covered extensively in the blogosphere. According to the publisher, El Naschie was replaced as editor-in-chief beginning January, 2009. As of May 2010, the new co-Editors-in-Chief of the journal are Maurice Courbage and Paolo Grigolini."
Sorry, but that's all I could find that I would mention, although there is plenty more available. Seems to be exceedingly controversial... You're not M. El Naschie, are you?
jtdwyer, El Naschie was the victim of a power struggle at the ill-fated Elsevier journal Chaos, Solitons & Fractals which you mentioned. He was not only the Editor-in-Chief but indeed the Founding Editor. He refused to compromise his multidisciplinary vision for the journal and was forced out by Macmillan Publishing under the direction of certain Zionist interests. For your information, he has been nominated more than once for the Nobel Prize in physics; but it has been denied him because he is an Arab and a Muslim, is named Mohamed, and unapologetically carries an Egyptian passport.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisH0sten - Thanks for your kind response.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSince there is so many irate postings related to El Naschie, can you perhaps suggest some introductory material that might be accessible for non-mathematicians/physicists?
jtdwyer: No apology needed, I got a tetch bombastic on that one as the beer had kicked in by then. As to the 'quantum encryption' reference, I am a total computer doofus and parrot what I hear and read. Given your extensive expertise in this realm I accept your statements without question.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnd I agree that there is something very real that has not yet been described. But that reality may exceed any language based (including math and logic) descriptions. The authors of the Copenhagen Interpretation in 1926 were also aware of this possibility and made the concious decision to describe quantum mechanics as a pragmatic theory. They clearly stated that "no models of reality are possible". Time will tell if they were correct in doing so.
All that being said, humans tend to have an innate drive to understand that fundamental reality and much of the research and discovery in QM and S/GR seems to be heading towards that end. If and when the GUT arrives and achieves the level of acceptance of the supporting theories, then I expect we will have moved closer to that understanding.
I just hope the GUT includes a description of the "spooky action at a distance" exhibited by entanglement. If it doesn't, then it wil just be a Grand Theory, not a Unified one.
tonysmith: I checked out your website, and sure enough, it is way over my head. However, I look forward to reading more descriptions suitable for the lay person on the implications and progress of octonionic applications in this field.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisjtdwyer, I recommend these sites:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.msel-naschie.com/
http://www.elnaschie.com/
http://mohammed-golden.blogspot.com/
Much of the material at those sites is non-technical, or not too technical anyway.
There is another site called El Naschie Watch run by a paid character assassin, and it is not worth your time. I will not post the URL.
tichead - Thanks. Yeah, I'd sure like to talk to the authors of the Copenhagen Interpretation - there is more data available now, and I have a few ideas of my own...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnd I thought I'd already explained entanglement! If only I could do the math...
Don't feel bad jtdwyer,there are those claim to do the math and can't.At least your honest about it.Although I would still like to hear more about your ideas about intanglement if you will please?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMurray Gell-Mann and the SU3 Lie group could suceed because accidentally, they were following some real natural classifications like the octate. The eight-dimensional number system called octonions is not a natural system. Hence it is bound to fail. Similarly, as hereticoftruth has put it, the thing about mathematics is you can model far more systems that are not compatible with reality than the few that are compatible with reality. Our over dependence on mathematics and frequent unphysical manipulations are the main impediments in the progress of science. For example, the statement; "Everyday real numbers are one-dimensional, whereas complex numbers, which have both real and imaginary parts, are two-dimensional" is wholly wrong. Numbers have no dimension. They are related to perception - differentiation between similars. Complex numbers are un-physical. Dimension refers to "spread" in a specified direction. Spread is related to real objects. Thus, complex numbers cannot have dimensions - leave alone two dimensions. Probably what was meant in the above comment was first order expressions (numbers included) imply extension in one dimension, i.e., length, breadth or height. Second order expressions imply area and third order expressions imply volume. Thus, the talk of higher dimensions, being unphysical, will never lead to any successful theory.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSimilarly, it is not correct that no amount of complexity will ever explain why like particles repel and opposite particles attract beyond the fact that they just do so. We have a complete theory to explain charge interactions including:
1) The apparent attraction of opposite charges with different mass.
2) Violation of the above principle in the case of anti-particles with same mass but opposite charge.
3) The apparent repulsion of similarly charged particles and violation of this principle in the case of nucleus and quarks.
4) Release of fusion energy, but absence of such energy during beta decay.
Anyone interested can contact mbasudeba@gmail.com.
basudeba.
I find it difficult to understand what is happening to us in America and by association what is happening to Scientific American. In China they celebrated five years ago the scientist whose first name is Mohamed. In America there is a group wishing to declare a certain day in the year as burn the Koran of Mohamed day. Did the Founding Fathers of our constitution envisage such a sad end? Maybe Vietnam is too long ago and we have forgotten the film Born on 20th July or was it another date, for instance 10th October, the birthday of our Mohamed. As for the subject matter I have a few points to make. First you should have a look at the Press Gazette. There is an article by Sarah Limbrick. Apparently Prof. El Naschie or Mohamed El Naschie took Macmillan to Court. It is nothing to be taken lightly. Macmillan is the owner of Scientific American. Is this a mere coincidence? Second there was an article published in the Telegraph entitled Surfer Dude. They were referring to Garret Lisi and his E8. Some 800 comments came afterwards. A substantial part of these comments were drawing attention to the work of El Naschie on E8 which predated that of Lisi. I am slightly perturbed by all that. I do not take lightly the conspiracy theories. At the same time I cannot dismiss them easily either. More important than all of that is the fact that Scientific American published an article in 2008 which many claimed to have plagiarized the work of Mohamed El Naschie as well as his co-Authors Prof. Ji-Huan He from Shanghai and others. The article was by a group working in an elite Dutch university headed by a Nobel laureate. What I find extremely surpising is that this Nobel laureate is a close friend of our Mohamed. Dont ask me what all this means. I am out of my depth. I hope the readers of this site can make more sense out of it than I can.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBlissared
Quantities length l, time t, gmflux f, burst b, mass m, momentum p, energy E and valention q.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisVector subscripts x, y and z.
l/t , f/l, b/f, p/m, E/p and q/E all have dimension velocity.
b/m has the same dimension as the gravitational constant.
The general metric with the 16 squares:
f� + (lx)� + (ly)� + (lz)� + E� + (qx)� + (qy)� + (qz)� =
t� + (bx)� + (by)� + (bz)� + m� + (px)� + (py)� + (pz)�
The two associated (ordinary) octonions (imaginary units i, j, k and L):
of = f + ilx + jly + klz + LE + iLqx + jLqy + kLqz
ot = -t - ibx - jby - kbz - Lm - iLpx - jLpy - kLpz
Marble quantities equating wooden quantities result in split octonions.
The general metric is the most simple and the most encompassing description of relativistic mechanics.
The superficial simplicity creates the compact real forms of complex simple Lie groups.
The two associated octonions possess all the magic they need.
"And how the One of Time, of Space the Three, Might in the Chain of Symbols girdled be."
I think some of the comments were not fair to the journalist who wrote this article. The article is not a scientific article like that of Renate Loll and Ambjorn. The journalist simply reported about a meeting. He is clearly unfamiliar with this subject. I doubt he knew Prof. Mohamed El Naschie from Adam. On the other hand, to be fair to Mohamed El Naschie I recall very well a nice little paper he wrote, oh yes in his journal, Chaos, Solitons & Fractals in which he mentions octions. He said something quite well known to mathematicians but maybe not to physicists. He said octions represent the limits of anything resembling numbers. I recall he wrote that under a heading saying the generalization of numbers. These things are quite well known. There is nothing new about attempting to use quatrions or octions in quantum mechanics. To call things happening in science back to basics reminds me with the program of the Conservative party when they were about to declare bankruptcy. It was John Major. You are right when you ask, John who? Anyway John Major or those conducting the election campaign suggested using the motto back to basics. He meant family values. That did not prevent him having an affair with the woman who was catering for Downing Street. Well I do not find anything wrong in El Naschie publishing his papers in his journal so why should I object about John Major using Downing Street in the way he used it. I do not think it is a very good analogy. It is the weekend and I sign off!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisP. Carter
A nice feature of Mohamed El Naschies research on E8 which distinguishes it from what Lisi and others did is his fuzziness. He reasons correctly that to be very accurate you have to be fuzzy. This is not a contradiction. This is an opportunity to get it right. For this reason he introduced what he called average symmetry. This notion of average symmetry is almost identical to the notion of symmetric chaos. Many strange chaotic attractors display this characteristic of symmetry in chaos. It is a sort of order in chaos if you want. Since Mohamed El Naschie is an engineering scientist who works in nonlinear dynamics he seems to be familiar with these things which do not naturally belong in the mathematical kit of theoretical physicists. He then found a few highly interesting things which I would like to report here with a user warning not to make the mistake and confuse this with what is so lightly labeled numerology. Apart of the fact that numerology has no clear definition nor is it something bad per se, what I am about to report has nothing to do with numerology. First the sum of the E line of exceptional groups comes exactly to 4 multiplied with the inverse of the electromagnetic fine structure constant 137. I say exactly but I mean only the integer part so I should have said approximately. Anyone can ascertain this fact himself by adding the following dimensions of the 8 groups. First for E8 we have 248, for E7 we have 133, for E6 we have 78, for E5 we have 45, for E4 we have 24 then we have 12 for the standard model Lie group. Added together, you get the result. Second he found that the total sum of the dimensions of compact and non-compact exceptional Lie group comes to 5 multiplied with 137. Again exact is only the integer part. The amazing thing is that the total sum of the dimension of the Stein spaces namely the 17 of them comes to the same value, namely 5 multiplied with 137. To learn much more about the mathematics behind that which has recently led to a complete resolution of all paradoxes connected with quantum mechanics, you should read the work of the E-infinity group published in Chaos, Solitons & Fractals. There are in the meantime many blogs which give the opportunity to see all these papers free of charge. In addition there is a new blog called E-infinity Communication where a great deal of information about this subject is given. I hope this is of use to you.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisJack, thanks for your kind interest. Sorry to have missed your request for so long. My ideas are unusual as I do not attempt to be consistent with established theories or models. I simply attempt to suggest simple physical processes that seem to be consistent with observational evidence while providing potential solutions to long standing problems with established interpretations of observations and existing theories. I make no claim that these ideas are new but they are largely independently developed. I do not claim any discovery or invention.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMy physical model of Quantum Entanglement has several prerequisite conditions:
- All fundamental particles were/are initially emitted as a directed energy wave. They are manifested as stationary particles when their momentum is materially absorbed or their motion is otherwise obstructed.
- In the extreme density of the very early universe, emitted energy waves could neither propagate though spacetime nor be reabsorbed by the emitting dense hot plasma. As a result, their motive energy was forced to envelop the material energy as an inwardly directed external field of potential energy, now generally identified as the property of mass. Particles of this configuration are identified as quarks.
- As the early universe cooled and expanded, emitted energy waves could propagate for limited distances in newly created spacetime before being impeded, producing the lower mass electrons. Their limited momentum and low mass generally prevents them from escaping the ‘orbit’ of nucleons.
- Eventually the density of the universe was sufficiently diminished by expansion that emitted energy waves (primarily photons) could propagate vast distances in now generally sparse spacetime without being obstructed. When obstructed by cooler material its momentum can most often be absorbed. As a result, light waves propagate through spacetime indefinitely until they are detected or absorbed, at which time they manifest as photon particles.
Emitted energy waves associated with varying types elementary particles intermittently manifest as fundamental particles exhibiting characteristic properties identified as spin, charge and mass. The probability of state manifestation is generally proportionate to their attributed mass: mass is determined by the incidence or duration of particle state manifestation. The more time a particle state is manifested, the more mass is attributed to the particle.
(continued)
Quantum Entanglement (cont.)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisConversely, primarily stationary particles only appear to propagate through spacetime when they are manifested as energy waves. For the higher mass nucleons that are rarely manifested as energy waves linearly propagating through spacetime for short intervals, their greater duration of particle state manifestations exhibit characteristic spin, altering the direction of subsequent wave state spacetime traversal. These intermittent processes combine to produce the characteristic ‘wiggling’ motion of atoms. I think this may be the first potentially viable explanation for the characteristic pattern of atom motion.
Since light waves only manifest as photon particles when detected (their momentum is materially absorbed), their rest mass is considered to be zero. Since energy waves are most often radially emitted, light waves are most often detectable as a radial distribution of photon particles. In quantum terms, a specific short duration emission of a light wave (in a specific direction) is eventually detected as a single photon.
Energy waves can be redirected or even split by several methods, principally refraction or mirroring. Splitting an energy wave produces two separate directions of propagation for the single waveform dimensionally dispersed through spacetime. As a result, each branch of the waveform can be individually detected as separate photons, each representing the characteristic properties of the singular waveform at the moment of detection. If two photons representing a single light wave are detected without their being any intervening alteration of the light wave’s characteristic properties, the characteristics of the photons will be identical. This condition is considered to be the distance independent entanglement of two photons, each separately traversing spacetime, but they actually represent a single light wave.
I hope this possibly new potential explanation of the physical processes producing the perceived phenomena of quantum entanglement will help someone fully describe it as an acceptable theory. To be of any use, of course, it would have to consistently describe and eventually predict observed physical phenomena.
Jim
This is regarding the sentence "It seemed like it would only be a matter of time before physicists found an overarching Lie group that could house everything, including gravity". In physics, some missing gaps still exist. (1) My experimental and subatomic research with
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisradioisotopes and XRF sources has revealed that beta does not exhibit its well known particle behavior within an excited atom of a radioisotope or X-ray source. (M.A. Padmanabha Rao, UV dominant optical emission newly detected from radioisotopes and XRF sources, Brazilian Journal of Physics, Vol.40, no.1, March 2010.
http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?pid=S0103-97332010000100007&script=sci_arttext ). However, I believe when beta escapes from an excited atom, beta acquires mass due to Earth's gravitational attraction. (2) Abundant cosmic radiation from Sun such as gamma, X-ray, beta, as well as EUV at North and South poles are due to attraction by Earth’s high gravitational force. In tropical countries such as India relatively less energetic radiations including visible light and infra red radiation from Sun are due to Earth’s relatively low gravitational force. All such examples lead to an entirely new concept that both matter (such as electrons, protons, neutrons) and energy (conceptually both photons and waves) consist of three components: (1) electric, (2) magnetic, and (3) gravitational forces. In a particular situation only one component is in excess, so influences accordingly on electron or photon. This needs a detailed explanation.
M.A.Padmanabha Rao,PhD
Former Professor of Medical Physics, New Delhi, raomap@yahoo.com
Lisi's idea is good - but Schiller's idea for a final theory is better! His strand model ( see www.motionmountain.net/fun.html ) makes predictions that agree with experiment: he reproduces the quark model, the three gauge groups, and parity violation. And he also predicts a way to calculate the masses and coupling constants.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPart I If you want to unify relativity with quantum mechanics, you have to start by making quantum mechanics understandable. Compared to quantum mechanics, relativity is quite classical. It is a spacetime theory and there is nothing of the totally counter intuitive result of quantum mechanics in relativity. Yes we understand time travel and twelve paradoxes and so on. None the less this is nothing compared to the paradox of the two-slit experiment and particularly wave collapse. Probability wave – what is that? However there is something new on the horizon. 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.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPart 2 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 preceedings of a conference in Shanghai http://www.isnd2010.com and http://www.msel-naschie.com. 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.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMaybe you're right, but I'm just a back-yard mechanic and like my reality simple. Please excuse my simple language.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf material energy in motion is always physically configured as a self-propagating energy wave and static material energy is always physically configured as a particle, then a measured emission of a quantisized light wave partially redirected by mirroring or partitioning remains a single energy wave, now with two directions of self-propagation. Each directed wave front, when detected by absorption of its momentum, manifests as a single photon representing the characteristic properties of the singular energy wave.
I think this simplistic explanation could be extended to explain all of the observational evidence obtained in the two-slit experiment.
If mass is the physical reconfiguration of kinetic wave energy such that it is directionally opposed (a point directed external field, for example) it may be simply a static potential energy representation of emission energy.
If the characteristic mass and reciprocal inherent motion of various types of particles is determined by the frequency/duration of their quantum state manifestations as particles/waves, the required Higgs Field particle selection function of the Higgs theory of particle mass can also simply explained.
In the temporally varying general thermal density of the universe, emitted energy waves could only propagate until obstructed (thermal density prevented material reabsorption). Diminishing thermal density produced particles with initially low frequency/duration of wave state manifestations, preferentially producing apparent high mass particles (quarks), proceeding to particles with higher frequency/duration of wave state manifestations (electrons, photons).
The low frequency/duration of wave state manifestation for what are considered high mass particles produces the short burst, seemingly randomly (re)directed 'jiggling' motion of atoms, contrasting with the essentially singularly linear directed continuous motion of photons. Is there any existing explanation for these characteristic motions of varying particle types?
Time for my nap, but these simple mechanical explanations generally make more sense to me. Hopefully, someone can understand what I'm trying to say.
By the way, in the double-slit experiment there is no (quantum) particle manifestation of material energy passing through slits, as only wave form material energy can propagate through space. Moreover, only the peripheral portions of wave energy propagates through two slits, essentially simultaneously, producing two individually directed wave fronts, each identically representing the singular wave function (of quantisized emission duration), each manifesting as (a single) particle upon the absorption of their momentum.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt may be instructive to measure the momentum of photons detected from non-partitioned and partitioned but otherwise identical light emissions.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisA 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 http://www.isnd2010.com and http://www.msel-naschie.com. 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.
The return of E-infinity
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisE-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
Dear Supporters of E-infinity:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn 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 have reached the extreme boundary of knowledge without being matured enough, except the great man (El naschie) 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."
Anonymous
"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
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
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe 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).
Dear E-infinity
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI 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 in 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.
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.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAlso 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.
El naschie is a real spark in the human written history, he is startling . Al his predictions based on E-infinity theory are well verified. Among many and just to name:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this1-The well experimentally verified results about fiber wool pioneered by Huan. Who showed that the Hausdorff dimension of fiber wool is to be about 4.2325, very close to El Naschies E-infinity dimension, 4.2360. According to Huan this reveals an optimal structure for wool fibers. This is an easy proved fact and it doesnt need high energy.
Hierarchy of wool fibers and its interpretation using E-infinity theory
Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, Volume 41, Issue 4, 30 August 2009, Pages 1839-1841
Ji-Huan He, Zhong-Fu Ren, Jie Fan, Lan Xu
2- A remarkable achievement of El naschie is his unique extra ordinary talent in revealing a deep connection between double slit experiment and particle physics. That is really a breakthrough in the field has never been acheived.
The two-slit experiment as the foundation of E-infinity of high energy physics
Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, Volume 25, Issue 3, August 2005, Pages 509-514
M.S. El Naschie
3- El naschie is gifted in doing simple calculations and getting non-perturbative results. While ordinary people can get results by using supper computers in a one year, El naschie get the same results straight forward by counting on his fingers without using computer at all. These are due his GOLDEN FINGERS.
On quarks confinement and asymptotic freedom
Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, Volume 37, Issue 5, September 2008, Pages 1289-1291
M.S. El Naschie
Quarks confinement
Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, Volume 37, Issue 1, July 2008, Pages 6-8
M.S. El Naschie
4- With a simple rope with knots El naschie could derive the spectrum of possible Elementary particles, and realy this is the discovery of the century.
Any one can just bring a rope with knots and could easily testify El naschies conjecture.
Fuzzy multi-instanton knots in the fabric of spacetime and Diracs vacuum fluctuation
Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, Volume 38, Issue 5, December 2008, Pages 1260-1268
El naschie may be the greatest thinker in the history of mankind and his theory is the most important discovery since the invention of wheel. El naschie maybe the most remarkable event after cosmic big bang. His theory can describe every thing after big bang and Im sure El naschie will extend his theory to accommodate what has been before big bang. Please dont wonder it is an E-infinity theory that could deal with such a long history of time.
Part I
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt is true that there is a 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:
(http://www.phys.uu.nl/~thooft/theoristbad.html)
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
Dirac.
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 centurys greatest scientist after Newton and Einstein,
and share his greatest achievement.
One can find more on the following link: www.ijnsns.com/conf/China1.doc
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...
Part 2
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this5-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
coherence...etc
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).( http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0004152). More detail can
be found in ( http://archivefreedom.org/freedom/Cyberia.html).
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: http://esi-topics.com/nhp/2006/september-06-MohamedElNaschie
.html
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. (http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html) 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 a good friendship
What would happen were we to admit that both Relativity and Quantum Mechanics are heavily flawed and start over? This is what has--more or less accidentally--been done in Oscillator/Substance Theory. This is a very simple theoretical approach which has developed over the past six years from a realization that, logically, the "Speed of Light" is not an absolute maximum velocity but an average velocity which may well be an average tangential velocity of rotating entities.... From this simple, basic observation has developed a very simple; but. apparently, very inclusive approach.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe best information source re the Oscillator/Substance Model is http://groups.google.com/group/oscillatorsubstance-theory