Image: Jean-Francois Podevin
In Brief
- Quantum theory and Einstein’s general theory of relativity are famously at loggerheads. Physicists have long tried to reconcile them in a theory of quantum gravity—with only limited success.
- A new approach introduces no exotic components but rather provides a novel way to apply existing laws to individual motes of spacetime. The motes fall into place of their own accord, like molecules in a crystal.
- This approach shows how four-dimensional spacetime as we know it can emerge dynamically from more basic ingredients. It also suggests that spacetime shades from a smooth arena to a funky fractal on small scales.
More In This Article
-
Sidebar
Theories of Quantum Gravity
-
Sidebar
Describing the Shape of Space
-
Infographic
Applying Quantum Rules to Spacetime
-
Infographic
What is a Dimension Anyway?
-
Infographic
Zooming In on Spacetime
-
Photo Album
Slideshow: Animations of Dimensions
Editor's Note: Click here for the web animations mentioned in the article
How did space and time come about? How did they form the smooth four-dimensional emptiness that serves as a backdrop for our physical world? What do they look like at the very tiniest distances? Questions such as these lie at the outer boundary of modern science and are driving the search for a theory of quantum gravity—the long-sought unification of Einstein's general theory of relativity with quantum theory. Relativity theory describes how spacetime on large scales can take on countless different shapes, producing what we perceive as the force of gravity. In contrast, quantum theory describes the laws of physics at atomic and subatomic scales, ignoring gravitational effects altogether. A theory of quantum gravity aims to describe the nature of spacetime on the very smallest scales—the voids in between the smallest known elementary particles—by quantum laws and possibly explain it in terms of some fundamental constituents.
Already a Digital subscriber? Sign-in Now
If your institution has site license access, enter here.
See what we're tweeting about
399 Comments
Add CommentSRT.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this==========================..
It began in 1905 when Einstein created SRT,
(theory of photon/electrons behaviour).
Minkowski, tried to understand SRT using 4D space.
Poor young Einstein, reading Minkowski interpretation,
said, that now he couldnt understand his own theory.
Einstein, you are right, it is difficult to understand SRT
using 4D space. But it is possible using my 5D space"
- said Kaluza in 1921.
This theory was tested and found insufficient.
"Well", said another mathematicians, - "maybe 6D, 7D,
8D, 9D spaces will explain it". And they had done it.
But the doubts still remain.
"OK", they say, "we have only one way to solve this problem.
We must create more complex D spaces".
And they do it, they use all their power, all their super intellects
to solve this problem.
Glory to these mathematicians !!!!
But&&&.
But there is one problem.
To create new D space, mathematicians must add a new parameter.
It is impossible to create new D space without a new parameter.
And the mathematicians take this parameter arbitrarily
(it fixed according to his opinion, not by objective rules).
The physicist, R. Lipin explained this situation in such way:
"Give me three parameters and I can fit an elephant.
With four I can make him wiggle his trunk&"
To this Lipins opinion it is possible to add:
"with one more parameter the elephant will fly."
The mathematicians sell and we buy these theories.
Where are our brains?
===============.
The SRT is a real theory.
But " 4-D Minkowski space " is an abstract theory.
There isn't any proof of its existence.
And if we mix these two theories then we are
surprised with its paradox.
What does the man usually do in such situation?
It is clear, he must understand
what 4-D Minkowski space " is. I say, it is Vacuum.
But somebody can say: You are wrong,
4-D Minkowski space is only a part of 11-D space.
Maybe this argument is correct. Then we must suppose
that the 11-D space will be a part of some 47-D space
in 50 years. And who knows where its end is.
Perhaps in 123-D space the physicists will find the God there.
And if we don't know what 1+1 = 2
how can we know what 5+4 = 9 ?
And if we don't know what is 4-D negative space
( 4-D positive Minkowski space )
how can we understand 11-D space ( string theory) ?
In another words, if we dont know what 4-D Minkowski
space " is, so it is impossible to take SRT as a finished one.
The proof of SRT isnt over yet. We must give a real
interpretation to 4-D Minkowski space ". I only hope that
a simple, usual logic will help a man to understand its essence.
====== =========
If I were a king, I would publish a law:
every mathematician who takes part in the creation
of 4D space and higher is to be awarded a medal
"To the winner over common sense".
Why?
Because they have won us over using the
absurd ideas of Minkowski and Kaluza.
==============..
I think this 4-D negative space is a real one.
I think this space is Vacuum.
Why?
1. Minkowski space has no gravity field, but negative parameter.
2. Only pure Vacuum space has no gravity
but negative parameter : T= - 273.
3. And this negative parameter is united with space/ time ,
which are joined together absolutely .
4. And the second SRT postulate tells about moving
light quanta in Vacuum.
5. It is impossible SRT to be the right theory
and space around SRT to be an abstract theory.
6. If in our brain abstract and real ideas are mixed together
then the interpretation of physics must be paradoxical.
====== ======
P.S.
Sorry.
I forgot that all Universe began from " apparent big bang ".
So I must add the " apparent big bang " to " D-space"
&&&&..or to " the God "......................
Then ...............
The atheist will say : " There isnt any God. There is only
big band which destroyed all D- spaces and therefore
we see background radiation T=2,7K now."
And religious man will say: " The God exists.
He sits at his D- home and plays with all things.
For example.
The action, when the God compresses all Universe
into his palm, we have named " a singular point".
And action, when the God opens his palm,
we have named the "Big Bang".
I dont know who is right.
But I came to conclusion:
" If I, as a peasant, think like modern physicists,
I will never gather my harvest . "
======= ======..
If mathematician makes a small mistake in the
beginning of his calculations then after some
operations it grows into a big one.
And if in the beginning of sciences birth (Newton )
the abstract ideas were put into its fundament ,
then now we are surprised with its paradoxes&&&
&&&&&&&&&..
&&and we can create new and new theories for 1000 years
but the result will be the same - paradoxical.
=============&
Best wishes.
http://www.socratus.com
http://www.wbabin.net/
Two views on the space and time.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this===========..
1.
Is it hard to see the three dimension. . .???
No.
There are an independent space and independent time:
We notice it on our planet Earth. It is a 3D space.
The space (Newtonian) around us is 3D,
and our eyes allow us to see this 3D.
If we take Descartes coordinates plus time,
when it is possible to say:
4D = 3D space + 1D time.
We live in this 4D and are aware of it.
2.
Is it hard to see the fourth dimension. . .???
No.
There is simultaneous union of space and time
(negative four-dimensional /Minkowski / space).
Herman Minkowski :
Henceforth, space by itself, and time by itself,
are doomed to fade away into mere shadows,
and only a kind of union of the two will preserve an independent reality.
Question. What is the a kind of union of the two ?
The answer. It is Vacuum. T=0K.
It is the space between milliards of billions Galaxies.
And only this space has negative quantity - negative
temperature. And it is negative four-dimensional
/Minkowski / space .
=====================.
Why we say :
" that it is impossible to see the fourth dimension.. ."
Maybe it is "special kind of intelligence is variably called
schizophrenia. "
=======================.
Einstein said,
"remember gentlemen, we have not proven
that the Aether does not exist, we have
merely proven that we do not need it (for computations)"!
==============
Perhaps you could elaborate a little about each slide: either as a voice or as some text. Not all are conversant with all the 'fractals' associated with it. Wish to see more plain version of these next time, thanks.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSirs:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHuh?
Sincerely,
Jacomus
P.S. I have trouble keeping my yo-yo string from knoting in mid-yo. This is way over my head.
P.P.S. I had the occasion to view the Einstein exhibit in Bern last fall, and to see a copy of the article with the footnote E=MC2. I cannot claim to understand much of the theory, but wouldn't it have been an experience to be the first physicist or mathmatician to read the draft of this paper? I picture Gene Wilder's Doctor Frankenstein character, hair flying, dark circles under his eyes shouting, "This could work!"
--
Edited by jacomus d'paganus-fatuus at 06/26/2008 2:48 PM
this was a terrific article -
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisparticle physics continues to be the most absorbing frontier of knowledge, precisely because so many opposing theories are competing for space (as it were) - makes for exciting reading for the layman - well done and please continue!
>This approach is way cool but I have to say that it reminds me somewhat of certain attempts at a Unified Field Theory of the 20's, 30's and 40's. Perhaps they were on the right track after all (incl. Einstein) considering the massive interest from the military both in America and Germany.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI have a question. Is the emergance of four dimensional space time continuum due to the assembling with the four sided triangular forms? (and of course the causality principle).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn other words, if 3 sided triangular forms - more correctly three simplices - instead of the four-simplices were the seed, would a 3D spacetime continuum result? Keeping the causal arrow concept in place, of course.
I have a question. Is it possible for a fractal to have many dimensions?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis guy may be quite smart, but his English is frustrating. And there seem to be signs of using an old Mac computer, which often had to write out contractions instead of forming recognizable ones, as in his
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYes, it is possible for a fractal to be in many dimensions.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPage 48 of the July 2008 Scientific American shows you the Meger Sponge, a 3 dimensional fractal. It can be generalized to higher dimensions.
how do we know that the universe we exist in or rather the picture of the universe we have conceived ...is smooth and uniform?How do we know at all ,that it is four dimensional ?why not five? why not 7??
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf the fractal is multi-dimesional (self-existance) and "it is vacuum" could it not effortlessly "produce" a multiverse? And would'nt it naturally be "below" and "above" it's creation?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNice explanations of quantum gravity. Thanks much.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPlease note that there are plenty of pages about fractals (not least my own) and a WIKI entry:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractal
see also http://www.geocities.com/Omegaman_UK/fractal.html
http://www.geocities.com/templarser/complexity.html
http://members.fortunecity.com/templarseries/index1.html
http://members.fortunecity.com/templarseries/beffect.html
I think that the authors may have forgotten one surface that may contribute to their theory.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe 2D plane can be rolled into a cylinder which is locally flat. An area diagonal is the shortest distance between opposite corners. This diagonal becomes a helix on a cylinder. The diagonal splits a square or rectanguilar plane into two triangles.
Certainly in astrophysics, such helices are the trajectories of the planets about a moving sun. When the sun is held stationary, these trajectories are viewed as nearly circular ellipses. The helical angle of each planet in this solar system can be calculated by vector addition of the speed of the sun and the speed of each individual planet [Mercury fastest ~78 degrees, Neptune slowest ~98 degrees, of the 8 major planets].
This helical structure to the solar system trajectories may allow for solenoid-like gravity effect [wave?] of planets relative to the sun.
There will be some wobble since the sun is revolving about the galactic core and likely not moving in an infinite straight line, but rather a toric or solenoid curve.
This macro-view may be consistent with the quantum view of David Hestenes 'zwitterbewegung' of an electron motion about a proton.
Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity was a brilliant accomodation of the failure by Mikelson-Morley to detect a universal spacetime reference frame and that accomodation was extended to include non-inertial reference frames by the General Theory of Relativity. Then Einstein made his greatest mistake and the consequences are with us to this day.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEinstein's mistake was to assume that there was a Universe to which he could apply his equations. But if there is a Universe then there is of consequence a universal spacetime reference frame. And if there is a universal reference frame then Relativity Theory, both the Special and General, are undone for what is 'relative' in the theories are non-universal reference frames.
Both the Special and General Theories continue to accord well with observation of course as long as they are apllied to defined local reference frames. It is only when the General Theory is applied to the 'Universe' that things fall apart. According to theory now, something north of 90% of the 'Universe' is invisible or undetectable or both. This is not the hallmark of a successful theory but of a failed one.
The authors of this article repeatedly refer to the Universe as if its existence has been firmly established by some incontrovertible empirical evidence but there is no such evidence. 'Universe' is a vestigal concept that has somhow managed to survive and undermine the onslaught of the fundamental principle of relativity for a century. It is a prime candidate for
relegation to the dust bin of history, as quaint a notion as the earth-centric cosmos that preceeded it.
A lot of baffling issues become less so when the notion of a universal spacetime reference frame is set aside. With no mumbo-jumbo this approach explains the quantum conundrum of the double slit experiment as a consequence not of the dual nature of light but of the separate natures of the reference frames of light and matter. It is no longer necessary to associate a direction with time any more than we impute a preferred direction to space. Time is the fourth spatial dimension as perceived by matter which is not to say that time is somehow an illusion. We measure the motion of matter through the fourth dimension as time by measuring regularly repeatable physical processes. Physical processes themselves have a direction and it is these processes that give us the sensation that time has a direction.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere is nothing to be lost by dispensing with the notion that we exist in a 'Universe' and much to be gained. A modern 21st century physics awaits.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe expression fractal spacetime was coined decades ago by a Canadian Professor Garnet Ord. The French Astrophysicist Laurent Nottale wrote at least 3 books in French and one book in English on the same subject. There are countless articles published on fractal gravity, Cantorian spacetime, fractal cosmology and real mathematical derivation of the dimensionality of spacetime from first principle as opposed to computer simulation. From all that you mentioned only the 50 years old Wheeler spacetime foam. This foam is not even a fractal. It is a bad practise not to mention the contribution of the pioneers. This is particularly unacceptable when it comes from the leading quantum gravity group in Europe. Studying the literature carefully and giving credit where it is due would have enhanced this work.
The connection between your paper and fractal spacetime is of course the most fascinating part. However what I find quite surprising is that you made no mention of the large body of literature on the subject. Somewhere in the paper you say you are making a derivation of the dimensionality of spacetime from first principles. You said this is the first time ever. This is of course a considerable claim. I am puzzled however by this claim because you have not made any derivation. You made an excellent computer simulation. You can hardly call computer simulation a derivation from first principles. Even worse than that, a derivation from first principles already exists since many years in the literature. I think you should rectify these claims and study the literature carefully. All the same, the idea of your work is excellent and it is a breath of fresh air in a stuffy old room full of stuffy old ideas. Good luck.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou guys must be joking! A derivation from first principle using a computer? This is unheard of. Besides, where is the contribution of the fractal cantorian spacetime trio? Garnet Ord, Laurent Nottale and Mohamed El Naschie? This is the chronological historical order. Before that, it was Richard Feynman not Wheeler foam. You have to stand corrected. Nevertheless, its a good paper in principle but could have been written more carefully. At least there are some truly new ideas here which do not usually come from Centers of Excellence. In all event best of luck.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis is John Robert Manis Of Hudson Florida. I have replied to this subject a short while ago and in it I believe that overall undersstanding of everything that exists in space and time can simply be explained by simply knowing that there is no limit as to how small and to how large something can be; that is everything is infinite. We the humane race and everything that exists around us is simply at one stage of an infinite number of stages of the largeness and smalless of things from which our outlook comes about all things from say a certain stage of outlook. Then for instance if something of a size in time and space is smaller or larger and we are standing on a particle (The Earth For Instance Or Whatever) which is say a trillion of a trillion of a trillion of times smaller than that which a moment ago was a trillionth of a trillionth of a trillionth larger having traveled in time a trillion of a trillion of a trillion years of getting larger and there as we stand are trying to understand the infinite smallness of something of matter, then said matter would be and exist in exactly the same way as we see it right now in time and space in a size of which it (say the atoms of which we are all made a part of) work in exactly the same way as is then and now in the establishment of the laws of physics in our time and space which can be then or is now a trillionth of a trilionth of a trillionth of a size which is small or larger as given here as just exemplified.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNow then to further exemplify the coming into being of things which thereof are aleady infinitely already of things being such as is in the "Big Bang Theory" of the start of our universe which started from the spreading apart of infinite smallness (from a stage point of view) of particals, all of which matter of the universe about reached the point of all just being waveforms which at that instant a certain law of physics does not allow all matter to be made up of just waveforms of former ultimately small particals that at the said instant when the last partical of an old universe had become so small and had traveled at such a limit of speed to try and become also a waveform of energy within an infinite small space of being, the at that said instant of time and space all of the condensed energy of an old universe which at said instant of its last negative said paritical trying trying to become a positive waveform, then all of the old universes squashed together particals became a singularity releasing positive and negative particals of a BIG BANG repulsive force.
I was under the impression that an exact theoretical derivation of the topological and the Hausdorff dimension of our spacetime was made in 1998 in a paper entitled “Superstrings, knots and noncommutative geometry in E-infinity space”. This paper is published in a highly reputed journal of theoretical physics “Int. J. of Theoretical Physics, Vol. 37, No. 12 1998, pp. 2935-2951”. The Editor in Chief of this outstanding journal is Prof. David Finkelstein who is himself an authority on the subject, both from the mathematical and philosophical sides. Am I right or am I getting something wrong? Please correct me if I am wrong.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFurthermore an American lady scientist Susie Vrobel who seems to be originally from Germany also wrote scores of beautifully formulated papers on fractal time. If I am not wrong there is at least one site in Wikipedia discussing her work. Is that not related to what the Author has been discussing? I think it is but again I am happy to be educated on the subject.
And yet another point regarding diffusion. There is a paper in a nonlinear dynamic journal published by Elsevier and which seems to have the highest impact factor in the filed, namely 3.5 deriving the exact dimensionality of spacetime from first principle using renormalization semi groups and a diffusion limited aggregation model. The paper is by a scientist from the Dept. of Appl. Math. & Theor. Phys, Cambridge and is entitled “Renormalization Semi-groups and the dimension of Cantorian space-time”, Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, Vol. 4, No. 7, 1994, pp. 1141-1145.
The same Author, in the same journal asked a fundamental question in his paper entitled “Is quantum space a random Cantor set with a golden mean dimension at the core?, CS&F, Vol. 4, No. 2, 1994, pp. 177-179. He answered the question with yes. Our spacetime can be described by two dimensions, a Menger Uhrysohn dimension equal to the imbedding dimension 4 and a Hausdorff dimension equal to 4 plus the golden mean to the power of 3. Our classical world is obviously described by this 4 while quantum gravity and high energy physics lives in the Hausdorff dimension. This is all of course only very loosely formulated. To understand it we have to read the mathematics in these papers.
So I am asking again, am I correct or not? I will appreciate very much an answer from whom ever is interested in the scientific truth of things.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI was present in a celebration held in Frankfurt on the 28th of June, 2002. The occasion was to honour a scientist for his exceptionally originally contribution to science. The Minister of Culture of Hessen was present and so a great number of famous scientist, some Nobel Laureate for instance Professor Horst Störmer, the discoverer of the fractional quantum hall effect. One of the most senior theoretical physicist of Germany Prof. Dr. Dr. Walter Greiner was the speaker. He said wordly in German the following to the honour of the said scientist: Herr Profesor Dr. Mohamed El Naschie entwickelte mit originellen Ideen eine Theorie der fraktalen Raum-Zeit.
Daher verleiht ihm der Frankfurter Förderverein für physikalische Grundlagenforschung der Johann Wolfgang Goethe Universität die Würde eines Distinguished Fellow.
To put it short in English, they honours Professor Mohamed El Naschie for successfully developing a theory for fractal spacetime.
I am a member of a community which has suffered in the past from many forms of discrimination. I am sure it was only an oversight that the name of Professor El Naschie was not mentioned in your Scientific American article. Nevertheless, I still find it unacceptable because the authors of the article are truly distinguished and come from a center known for excellence, such as the University of Utrecht and Niels Bohr Institute. It is never too late to acknowledge an oversight or a mistake. Think about the great Richard Feynman. He never hesitated to apologize and say I am sorry, you are right and I am wrong. That is why Richard Feynman is a truly great scientist.
An even earlier contribution to the derivation of the dimensionality of spacetime than that mentioned by S. Olson is a 1992 paper by the same author El Naschie. The paper is called Multidimensional cantor sets in classical and quantum mechanics. See Elsevier: www.sciencedirect.com. In fact there are many comments on the work of Garret Lisi and Mohamed El Naschie which you can find on the Telegraph site: www.http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2007/11/14/scisurf114.xml.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSome have even suggested that Garret Lisi, Michael Green and Mohamed El Naschie should share the next Nobel Prize in Physics. Does this mean that the exceptional Lie symmetry groups are related to the article in Scientific American? If I understand what El Naschie has written correctly, then E8 Exceptional Lie symmetry group is the fabric of spacetime and therefore the dimension of spacetime and that of E8 must be derivable from each other. This exciting proposition seems to be what El Naschie has been writing about in the last 15 years or so.
I am a post graduate student of theoretical physics. My thesis is on a new model for quantum spacetime using elementary Cantor sets in infinite dimensional space. I make a great deal of use of exceptional Lie group hierarchies, the subject which was developed by an Egyptian professor Dr. Mohamed El Naschie (the correct pronunciation is Al-Nashaiee). I was really confused when I read that the group from Holland and Denmark are searching for the atoms of the geometry of quantum spacetime. These atoms are well known - they are the elementary Cantor sets. In fact Prof. El Naschie made a rigorous mathematical derivation of both the Hausdorff dimension and the topological dimension of spacetime using these elementary Cantor sets. In fact by introducing randomness to these Cantor sets, the analysis becomes extremely simple as I have shown in my thesis based on El Naschie's work. I know a great deal about the history of Cantorian fractal spacetime and it is really not related that much to Wheeler's foam spacetime which is not a fractal. It is only an example of a multiply connected space. There are many inaccuracies in this paper when it comes to fractals. Many things mentioned are simply wrong. The Authors did not really use fractals, they just mention it maybe because it is an attractive new concept. But it is really not new. El Naschie and his school published papers about this subject for almost the last twenty years. In 1995 Prof. El Naschie with his colleagues Otto Rossler, well known for the Rossler attractor and his teacher and mentor, Nobel laureate IIya Prigogine edited a book entitled Quantum Mechanics, Diffusion and Chaotic Fractals. The book was published by Pergamon/Elsevier and contained many excellent articles about Prof. El Naschie's thesis. One article was from someone from Niels Bohr Inst. in Copenhagen. His name is S.E. Rugh and his article was called "Chaos in the Einstein Equations". Another article was by E. Alvarez with the stimulating title "The Quantum Dimension of Space-Time". Yet another was by Laurent Nottale called "Scale Relativity, Fractal Space-Time and Quantum Mechanics". Nottale, a French astrophysicist was the first to publish a book on Fractal Spacetime. His book is published by World Scientific in 1993. On page 193 Nottale acknowledged priority of the work of G.N. Ord and Prof. El Naschie.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPlease do not misunderstand my intentions by these remarks. We have all the greatest respect for the Authors of the article in Scientific America. They are all outstanding scientists with a great scientific achievement. The article is written in a very nice, informal style which appeals to the non-specialist but as a specialist, I am confused at least with regard to some claims which I find hard to accept. For instance, and as noted on this site by others, a computer simulation cannot be equated with a mathematical derivation from the first principle, particularly when a real mathematical derivation of the dimensionality of spacetime from first principle was given long ago by El Naschie. I hope these remarks contribute to the clarification of the subject and I could not conclude my comments without congratulating the Authors as well as Scientific American for bringing to the fore an extremely important theory which has been ignored for quite a long time by the well established schools of theoretical physics. All in all the Authors had the courage to address the subject and had the foresight to realize the value of lateral thinking in the tradition of Einstein and Richard Feynman.
M. Ammar
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisA great deal of the criticism of this article centred around some unfortunate omission of previous contributions to the theory of fractal spacetime. I ´f we just forget the personal aspect then this article was really a great news for science. We have to thank the author for having brought to a wider attention the fundamental and path breaking idea that on the quantum scale spacetime is a fractal and can be modelled by Cantor sets. Please forget all other details. This is an important contribution for science in general and quantum gravity in particular. As for the historical background of fractal spacetime you do not need to search far. Those who overlooked the theory could not overlook a special issue of Elsevier journal Chaos, Solitons & Fractals which was devoted to the 60th birthday of arguably the most important theoretical physicist of our time, Nobel Laureate Gerardus `t Hooft. This issue with an editorial by the editor in chief, Professor El Naschie, entitled “On being a man who wants to know everything” include many contributions of the application of fractal spacetime to particle physics and quantum gravity. See Elsevier sciencedirect, Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, Vol 30 (2006) pp 257 – 508. For those who are not happy about the particle I say they should look to the positive effect of this particle on science as a whole rather than taking this or that remark personally. With best wishes to everybody including the courageous and forward looking young editors of Scientific American.
Is there a typographical error at the top of page 5? Quoting as the line reads in my Internet browser: "Down to a size of about 10 meter, the quantum universe at large is well described ...". Certainly that "10 meter" should be something considerably smaller, 10 to the power of -40 for example.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisForgive me if someone's already noted this.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisA great deal of the criticism of this article centred around some unfortunate omission of previous contributions to the theory of fractal spacetime. I ?f we just forget the personal aspect then this article was really a great news for science. We have to thank the author for having brought to a wider attention the fundamental and path breaking idea that on the quantum scale spacetime is a fractal and can be modelled by Cantor sets. Please forget all other details. This is an important contribution for science in general and quantum gravity in particular. As for the historical background of fractal spacetime you do not need to search far. Those who overlooked the theory could not overlook a special issue of Elsevier journal Chaos, Solitons & Fractals which was devoted to the 60th birthday of arguably the most important theoretical physicist of our time, Nobel Laureate Gerardus `t Hooft. This issue with an editorial by the editor in chief, Professor El Naschie, entitled On being a man who wants to know everything include many contributions of the application of fractal spacetime to particle physics and quantum gravity. See Elsevier sciencedirect, Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, Vol 30 (2006) pp 257 508. For those who are not happy about the article I say they should look to the positive effect of this particle on science as a whole rather than taking this or that remark personally. With best wishes to everybody including the courageous and forward looking young editors of Scientific American.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisA great deal of the criticism of this article centred around some unfortunate omission of previous contributions to the theory of fractal spacetime. I ´f we just forget the personal aspect then this article was really a great news for science. We have to thank the author for having brought to a wider attention the fundamental and path breaking idea that on the quantum scale spacetime is a fractal and can be modelled by Cantor sets. Please forget all other details. This is an important contribution for science in general and quantum gravity in particular. As for the historical background of fractal spacetime you do not need to search far. Those who overlooked the theory could not overlook a special issue of Elsevier journal Chaos, Solitons & Fractals which was devoted to the 60th birthday of arguably the most important theoretical physicist of our time, Nobel Laureate Gerardus `t Hooft. This issue with an editorial by the editor in chief, Professor El Naschie, entitled “On being a man who wants to know everything” include many contributions of the application of fractal spacetime to particle physics and quantum gravity. See Elsevier sciencedirect, Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, Vol 30 (2006) pp 257 – 508. For those who are not happy about the article I say they should look to the positive effect of this article on science as a whole rather than taking this or that remark personally. With best wishes to everybody including the courageous and forward looking young editors of Scientific American.
Fractal spacetime is not only in France. In fact there is a powerful school of fractal spacetime led by the outstanding Indian Physicist B. G. Sidharth. Prof. Sidharth is one of the first to realize the power of El Naschie’s Cantorian spacetime. He also participated in several conferences in India and overseas where fractal spacetime and cantorian geometry were featured strongly. He has written many books and the last of which is a monograph titled: “The Universe of Fluctuations” in 2005 and was published by Springer, Heidelberg, Germany. Ominously on page 42, he reviewed both “Scale Relativity” of Laurent Nottale and “Cantorian spacetime” of M. S. El Naschie. About 6 years ago the Berla Institute in Hyderabad, India honored Prof. El Naschie for his outstanding achievement connected to particle physics and cantorian fractal spacetime.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn fact there is another book by Kluwer Academic, Published by Plenum titled “Frontiers of Fundamental Physics” and edited by Prof. Sidharth. The first paper in this book is by Nobel Laureate Gerardus ‘tHooft and on page 65 there is a paper by Prof. Laurent Nottale, the French Astrophysicist, called “Scale relativity and non-differential fractal spacetime”. There are also 2 papers by Prof. El Naschie in this same book. One is: “ ‘tHooft dimension regularization implies transfinite heterotic string theory and dimensional transmutations” and the second paper: “The cantorian gravity coupling constant 1/126.1803398”.
From all of the above, I conclude that the theory of Fractal and Cantorian spacetime and from which Sidharth developed another version called “Fuzzy spacetime” , is a powerful theory and well-established since many years, although it is mildly ignored in Europe and the States. I really don’t understand the reason for that? Some have advanced the theory that scientists from the developing world have simply the wrong names and addresses. This would be truly a sad time for Science. I only hope that Scientific American which represents everything that is excellent about America will prove these opinions wrong. We are sure that America will continue to lead the world and that a wonderful window of change will be coming in the form of possibly a most wonderful leader of America to come, Barrack Obama.
Kumar
I am Ph.D. candidate in China and I am interested in biology. In an Elsevier journal called Bio Systems I read 'Dimensional symmetry breaking, information and fractal gravity in Cantorian Spacetime' by M.S. El Naschie, 46, pp. 41-46, 1998. We are now using this theory in biology. In my recent paper (accepted), I applied fractal E-infinity Cantorian spacetime theory to wool structure in nano scale , and it seemed a great success. It seems to me that this theory is the basis of the paper in Scientific American called 'The Self-Organizing Quantum Universe' . In fact the same author, El Naschie wrote "The VAK of vacuum fluctuation, spontaneous self-organization and complexity theory interpretation of high energy particle physics and the mass spectrum", Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, 18, pp. 401-420, 2003. In other words the concept of spontaneous self-organization and self-assembly was understood by El Naschie many years ago. Therefore I am at a loss to see why the work of so many dedicated scientists has been ignored. We have benefited in our research from El Naschie's publications. We always refer to his work. Science and true scientists do not recognise geographical or racial divisions. That is our strength. I hope the editor should pay special attention to this omission, in fact I am sure it is not intended. It is however still hurtful and it is also not expected from great European centers of excellence. I hope very much that there will be an appropriate action on behalf of those responsible to correct the situation.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI am a member of a Chinese group working on fractal spacetime and its application in physics and biology. I read with great admiration the very readable article by Professors Jay Ambjorn, Jerzy Jurkiewicz and Renate Loll. However what I cannot understand if why the contribution of our group is not mentioned. We covered this subject from all points of view. We wrote papers elucidating the geometrical and the topological aspects. We followed Prof. Mohamed El Naschie in using higher dimensional Coxeter polytopes. We discovered a polytope in 10 dimensions with incredible properties. This polytope is now called He's polytope. We can deduce from this polytope the number of elementary particles in the standard model. In higher dimensional space there is only one type of polytopes and this is the generalization of the cube so the situation becomes very simple. In 6 dimensions the number of elements is exactly 496. This is precisely the dimension of the E8E8 exceptional Lie group of super strings so we are working very hard and obtained very nice results. China is now a very important country so I do not understand why our contribution is ignored. We find it slightly offensive as if we are not good enough to be counted. I sincerely hope that this is not the intention and I sincerely hope that the greatest scientific magazine in the world - Scientific American - would be fair enough to give us the same chance and opportunity as they gave others. Despite the hard feeling we are still objective enough to recognise the important contribution which the publication of this paper has made but I would like to ask all readers to just have a look at the beautiful paper by Prof. Ji-Huan He entitled "Twenty-six dimensional polytope and high energy spacetime physics", Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, 33, No. 1, pp. 5-13. This can be found on Elsevier's website Science Direct.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSir, I would like to recommend a new book by Dr. Edi Billimoria titled "The Snake And The Rope" which deals with Evolutions of Life and contrasts the methods and philosophies of Western science with that of Occult Science and shows how the 'unexplained phenomenon' can be explained by Occult Science. Reference: www.SnakeAndTheRope.com
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe ongoing discussion concerning the unfortunate omission to refer to the man first used cantor sets to model spacetime and derive the mass spectrum of elementary particle, namely Mohamed El Naschie is threatening to obscure a very important real issue which this paper has brought to the open. Far more important than the use of the word fractal spacetime in this paper is the use of causality. The author referred to their computer simulation as causal triangulation. As is well-known causality presupposes an arrow of time. It was the lifelong ambition of Ilya Prigogine incidentally also a Nobel Laureate to prove that irreversibility of time is something fundamental even in particle physics. Like many great scientists Prigogine had the right intuition but didn’t have the mathematical skill. It was obvious that he was going to lose the battle. Quantum mechanics is manifestly reversible. An arrow of time and irreversibility seem to be something related only to statistical mechanics and thermodynamics. Prigogine was known for his pioneering work in nonlinear, non-equilibrium thermodynamics. It seems that this was the reason why he was so interested in deterministic chaos theory. At a certain point he got to know Mohamed El Naschie and I think this was in Tokyo some 18 years ago. El Naschie’s idea was to build a bridge between the philosophical point of view of the highly philosophical Prigogine and the mathematical and pragmatic reality of high energy particle physics and here I recommend a paper to be read by everyone. It is called: Time symmetry breaking, duality and cantorian space time. It appeared in 1996 some twelve years ago. El Naschie must have been in Cambridge at this time because this is the address appearing on the paper, although I have seen him myself at the time in Tokyo with Prof. Ilya Prigogine writing this paper in close collaboration. The idea of El Naschie was that the fractality of spacetime is the cause for the arrow of time and irreversibility. This is really fundamental and ironically the confirmation for Prigogine and El Naschie’s theory is coming now from the University of Utrecht. I say now ironically because I know that a very powerful personality in Utrecht who has long retired was always against Prigogine’s ideas calling it idle philosophy. Now and here is the irony: a powerful group from the same University, whether they know it or not, are championing the idea of Prigogine. This is an unexpected turn of events. Of course particle physicists have all the right to refuse Prigogine’s thesis but then again they could not have anticipated that spacetime on the quantum scale has a cantorian geometry or in modern language is a fractal. I think this is the most important aspect which the discussion of this paper should be concerned with. In very early papers which I have seen and some of my Chinese friends have drawn my attention to lately, I could see that in 1993 El Naschie has not yet discovered the utility of randomness and therefore he didn’t know about the Golden Mean. His work from this period on was able nevertheless to drive a dimensionality for spacetime. But he used the Bose Einstein statistics. The result was 4.025. I could not believe my eyes when I saw on page 29 of the article in scientific American that their computer simulation gave 4.02 as the dimensionality of spacetime. This is a great confirmation for the point of view of El Naschie’s as well as Ambjorn and his coauthors. So once again I don’t think that we should dwell too much about who was first because we never live in a vacuum. Historically El Naschie’s work predates the work of the Utrecht group by a decade if not longer. But this is not a calamity. Just the opposite and as Prigogine used to say, quoting Whitehead: It is an opportunity.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisA few years back, during the prolific life of Nobel Laureat Illya Prigogine (1977), I had a rather interesting experience very much related to the debate above (and below) regaring Mohamed El Naschie's work and impact on his field. El Naschei was on a visit to the Free University in Brussels, and was presenting some of his work. To me, an engineer with interests in earthquake engineering and engineering seismology, it was all greek, as my Illinois colleagues would say. Professor Prigogine was sitting right next to me. Mid-stream, I heard him murmur something. I could not pick up what he said. A few minutes later he repeated what he said, or so it sounded to me. I could not get it still. I leant towards him as if I was just changing my sitting style, and tuned my ears to his Russian English. Then came the third time, he said 'If this was proven, this is a Nobel'. Coming from a Nobel Prize Winner, this made me try harder, and fail, to understand what El Naschie was describing. I eventually understood, in a sense, what this is all about by virtue of a personalized explanation by El Naschei himself; a faculty that he has in explaning complex physics even to an earthquake engineer. So, dear readers and commentators, this is a verdict from someone who knows what it takes to undertake ground breaking work that leads to the highest scientific recognition of our time. That others emulate, and deny emulating, El Naschie is no wonder. Fortunately, El Naschie is also prolific, not just brilliant, and he has presented his work to hundreds if not thousands, and has also written many papers. So, his claim to the fame that he deserves, and the eventual Nobel Prize, is well-documented and irrefutable. I close by borrowing a statement from a very dear friend in describing a portion of our profession. These are those physicists who can only express their opinions in equations that have two sides, right and left. When one examines the right side carefull, one finds that there is nothing right. Upon turning to the left side, and examining the left side carefully, one finds that there is nothing left. IN El Naschie's work there is tremendous vision and deep thought, expressed in equations or not. Lesser mortals struggle to develop equations that are often described as above.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBecause of my interest in science and philosophy, I found myself in May 1991 in Paris, France attending the first International Symposium on Gödel’s theorems held in the University of Pierre and Marie Curie and I was surprised that the guest of honor giving an opening talk was not a philosopher but an engineering scientist from the Department of Applied Mathematics and Theoretical Physics in the UK. The title of his lecture was: Gödel, Cantor and modern nonlinear dynamics. Let me give you the abstract of this paper: The work gives a broad outline of a way of looking at turbulence and quantum mechanics using ideas which were developed by G. Cantor and K. Gödel. What is suggested here is that micro spacetime maybe a cantorian structure with a natural informational horizon.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHow could anyone overlook that the idea of modeling spacetime with cantor sets is due to El Naschie? Luckily for the history of science, the proceeding of this conference is compiled by an international publisher World Scientific and edited by Z.W. Wolkowski. The proceeding itself appeared in 1993 but still well ahead of the date given in the article of Scientific American as the beginning of their work which is 1998.
Far of wanting to accuse anybody of anything, I had to interfere because scientists have devoted their lives for the pursuit of truth not fame or success. Of course we are all human with all human frailties but then we have to remind one another of the real ideal of science so that we collectively can go in the right direction. The first paper in which the word fractal spacetime was used was in the year 1983 by an English Canadian Scientist Garnett Ord. The first book published was in 1993 by the French Scientist L. Nottale. The two together with M. El Naschie edited many volumes on fractal spacetime and now I learned from this site that the late Nobel Laureate Ilya Prigogine came up with the idea that causality and therefore the arrow of time must be given a fundamental position even in particle physics.
To my knowledge the article in Scientific American is the first article which comes from conservative circles confirming these avant-garde theories. So on the whole it did a good service to the scientific community at large. Tying the article however with the considerable effort done in the last 20 years could have been only the more beneficial to science. Incidentally the work on Cantorian spacetime was also published in traditional literature such as the American Institute of Physics.
Lets take the building blocks and make them pulsate at a "clock rate" such that the frequency (in seconds) times the distance across the block equals 186000. Movement from one block to the next can only occur at a particular point in the pulsation. We have the explaination for the lightspeed limitation.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAssume that particles with mass absorb the blocks so that there is an inward movement of blocks toward any massive particle. We have the gravitational field. Assume that radiation in space generates blocks by giving up energy. We have variations in gravity around galaxies according to the density of radiation which alters the rotational speed of stars around galactic centers and possibly explains dark energy and removes the need for dark matter.
The use of Cantorian sets and fractals to model spacetime is well known to us. I feel I should draw the attention of whoever is interested to a paper
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thiswhich I wrote on this subject and which is published by Springer Verlag ISBN-10 1-4020-4151-9 9HB. The book is Edited by B.G.Sidharth, F. Honsell and A. De Angelis, University of Udine, Italy. My paper is entitled "Cantorian Space in Nature and Dynamical Systems". It is page 183-190. In the same volume there is a highly interesting paper by Prof. G. 't Hooft called "Black holes and the information paradox". Another paper in this book is by G. Ord who invented the word fractal spacetime. I hope this information is helpful to the readers of this site.
Prof. Gerardo Iovane
University of Salerno - Italy
Because of my interest in science and philosophy, I found myself in May 1991 in Paris, France attending the first International Symposium on G?s theorems held in the University of Pierre and Marie Curie and I was surprised that the guest of honor giving an opening talk was not a philosopher but an engineering scientist from the Department of Applied Mathematics and Theoretical Physics in Cambridge University, UK. The title of his lecture was: G?, Cantor and modern nonlinear dynamics. Let me give you the abstract of this paper: The work gives a broad outline of a way of looking at turbulence and quantum mechanics using ideas which were developed by G. Cantor and K. G?. What is suggested here is that micro spacetime maybe a cantorian structure with a natural informational horizon.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHow could anyone overlook that the idea of modeling spacetime with cantor sets is due to El Naschie? Luckily for the history of science, the proceeding of this conference is compiled by an international publisher World Scientific and edited by Z.W. Wolkowski. The proceeding itself appeared in 1993 but still well ahead of the date given in the article of Scientific American as the beginning of their work which is 1998.
Far of wanting to accuse anybody of anything, I had to interfere because scientists have devoted their lives for the pursuit of truth not fame or success. Of course we are all human with all human frailties but then we have to remind one another of the real ideal of science so that we collectively can go in the right direction. The first paper in which the word fractal spacetime was used was in the year 1983 by an English Canadian Scientist Garnett Ord. The first book published was in 1993 by the French Scientist L. Nottale. The two together with M. El Naschie edited many volumes on fractal spacetime and now I learned from this site that the late Nobel Laureate Ilya Prigogine came up with the idea that causality and therefore the arrow of time must be given a fundamental position even in particle physics.
To my knowledge the article in Scientific American is the first article which comes from conservative circles confirming these avant-garde theories. So on the whole it did a good service to the scientific community at large. Tying the article however with the considerable effort done in the last 20 years could have been only the more beneficial to science. Incidentally the work on Cantorian spacetime was also published in traditional literature such as the American Institute of Physics.
Because of my interest in science and philosophy, I found myself in May 1991 in Paris, France attending the first International Symposium on Gödel’s theorems held in the University of Pierre and Marie Curie and I was surprised that the guest of honor giving an opening talk was not a philosopher but an engineering scientist from the Department of Applied Mathematics and Theoretical Physics in Cambridge University, UK. The title of his lecture was: Gödel, Cantor and modern nonlinear dynamics. Let me give you the abstract of this paper: The work gives a broad outline of a way of looking at turbulence and quantum mechanics using ideas which were developed by G. Cantor and K. Gödel. What is suggested here is that micro spacetime maybe a cantorian structure with a natural informational horizon.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHow could anyone overlook that the idea of modeling spacetime with cantor sets is due to El Naschie? Luckily for the history of science, the proceeding of this conference is compiled by an international publisher World Scientific and edited by Z.W. Wolkowski. The proceeding itself appeared in 1993 but still well ahead of the date given in the article of Scientific American as the beginning of their work which is 1998.
Far of wanting to accuse anybody of anything, I had to interfere because scientists have devoted their lives for the pursuit of truth not fame or success. Of course we are all human with all human frailties but then we have to remind one another of the real ideal of science so that we collectively can go in the right direction. The first paper in which the word fractal spacetime was used was in the year 1983 by an English Canadian Scientist Garnett Ord. The first book published was in 1993 by the French Scientist L. Nottale. The two together with M. El Naschie edited many volumes on fractal spacetime and now I learned from this site that the late Nobel Laureate Ilya Prigogine came up with the idea that causality and therefore the arrow of time must be given a fundamental position even in particle physics.
To my knowledge the article in Scientific American is the first article which comes from conservative circles confirming these avant-garde theories. So on the whole it did a good service to the scientific community at large. Tying the article however with the considerable effort done in the last 20 years could have been only the more beneficial to science. Incidentally the work on Cantorian spacetime was also published in traditional literature such as the American Institute of Physics.
Why do Physicist always try to describ an 11 dimension universe with four dimensions. One can of beer does not make a six. pack. "Zooming in on Spacetime", page 49 has by far the best description of Infinity I have read to date. Tanks
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhy do Physicist try to describe an eleven dimension universe with four dimenisions. "Zooming in on Spacetime" page 49 is by far the best description of Infinity I have read.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe theory of fractal spacetime is well known in Japan and used intensively. It is known under the name of E-Infinity theory which was invented by M. S. El Naschie in England. As a specimen of the work done in Japan, I may mention one of the many contributions due to Prof. W. Tanaka from the Department of Physics in Kyoritsu University. I was surprised just as many others were that the article in Scientific American forgot to mention the contribution of the Japanese school. The paper in question is (The mass spectrum of hadrons and E-Infinity theory). It could be found on Elsevier sciencedirect, Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, vol. 27, 2006, Pages 851-863. The article in Scientific American is good news in general. Niels Bohr Institute in Denmark and Spinoza Institute in Holland are two well-known Centers of Excellence in Theoretical Physics. The fact they are interested in fractal spacetime and are publishing papers on the subject is the good news. The bad news however is that they forgot to mention the originator and inventor of the beautiful theory.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe authors this article should notice that Fractal Cantorian nature of spacetime has been proposed firstly by M. S. El Naschie long times ago. Papers of this author in Chaos, Solitons & Fractals show the validity of this claim.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI am a system analyst and I am interested in modelling and simulation. I found a highly interesting paper in a journal published in Switzerland by Gorden & Breach USA. The journal is called Systems Analysis Modelling Simulation. In Vol. 11, No. 3, 1993 on page 217-225 there is a paper called ' On universal behaviour and statistical mechanics of multi-dimensional triadic Cantor sets'. The Author seems to be in Cornell University,Ithaca, USA. In table no. 1 he found the dimension of spacetime to be 4.025 for a Bose-Einstein statistic. This is extremely close to the value reported in Scientific American article called " The sefl-organizing quantum)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe Author M.S. El Naschie is probably the same author that some of the comments made here are talking about but I am not sure. It seems from the paper that he used a quantum ensemble because he was hoping to confirm some ideas regarding the arrow of time due to Nobel laureate Ilya Prigogine. I think a specialist might be interested in drawing connections between this paper in an engineering journal and the work of theoretical physicists working on quantum gravity.
I have a simple query. I was in a conference in 2005 in Shanghai dedicated to the honour of Prof. Mohamed El Naschie. I even remember the poem dedicated to him by a Chinese professor written in Chinese and read both in Chinese and English translation. The reason was mainly his invention or discovery of the fractal Cantorian nature of quantum spacetime and for having been able to devise a theory based on an infinitely large but hierarchal Cantor set. My question is, why is there no mention of this fundamental work in this otherwise excellent review article? Thank you.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI have a simple query. I was in a conference in 2005 in Shanghai dedicated to the honour of Prof. Mohamed El Naschie. I even remember the poem dedicated to him by a Chinese professor written in Chinese and read both in Chinese and English translation. The reason was mainly his invention or discovery of the fractal Cantorian nature of quantum spacetime and for having been able to devise a theory based on an infinitely large but hierarchal Cantor set. My question is, why is there no mention of this fundamental work in this otherwise excellent review article? Thank you.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI just mention here one reference which must be known to all, at least in Germany. This is a book titled: Sciences of the Interface, edited by H. Diedner, T. Druckrey and B. Weibel and published by the German Publisher Genista in Tubingen, Germany in 2001 (ISBN 3-930171-26-0). On page 53-57 and in figure 1 you will see a picture of M. El Naschie jumping from our Universe into the fractal space-time Universe, performing a macro two-slit experiment by passing with his skies, in the mountain near his winter home in Garmisch-Partenkirschen, Germany, around a Christmas tree from both sides simultaneously without breaking or hitting the tree.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt is strange that almost 20 years after he discovered that fractal space-time is the resolution of the two-slit experiment, a joint paper from two Centers of Excellence make the claim that they discovered that space-time on the quantum level is fractal? To understand that is beyond me particularly because they are nobody less than members of the Niels Bohr Institute in Copenhagen and the Spinoza institute in Utrecht?
I just mention here one reference which must be known to all, at least in Germany. This is a book titled: Sciences of the Interface, edited by H. Diedner, T. Druckrey and B. Weibel and published by the German Publisher Genista in Tubingen, Germany in 2001 (ISBN 3-930171-26-0). On page 53-57 and in figure 1 you will see a picture of M. El Naschie jumping from our Universe into the fractal space-time Universe, performing a macro two-slit experiment by passing with his skies, in the mountain near his winter home in Garmisch-Partenkirschen, Germany, around a Christmas tree from both sides simultaneously without breaking or hitting the tree.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt is strange that almost 20 years after he discovered that fractal space-time is the resolution of the two-slit experiment, a joint paper from two Centers of Excellence make the claim that they discovered that space-time on the quantum level is fractal? To understand that is beyond me particularly because they are nobody less than members of the Niels Bohr Institute in Copenhagen and the Spinoza institute in Utrecht? Thank you
I have read most of the comments made on this site and I fully agree that Prof. El Naschies name should have been mentioned in this article. After all he is not only the initiator of the idea of fractal spacetime together with his English and French colleagues but he is also the most prolific physicist on this subject. In fact some people have counted that he must be the most prolific physicist in history counting something like 1000 papers to his credit. It always mystifies me why when any negatives come from the Middle East, it is popularized as much as possible in the press? But when it comes to mentioning legitimately the name of an Arab scholar who has made fundamental contributions to fundamental physics, then somehow his name evaporates from the memory? Is there any scientific explanation to this curious phenomenon?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisF
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFractal spacetime is well known in Germany. I did hear long ago a lecture by Mohamed El Naschie in the University of Tübingen more than 10 years ago. He was invited to the department of physical chemistry. I remember the day before some comment by him on the theory of chaos appeared in the famous magazine “Der Spiegel” There was a vivid discussion and some not very fair questions by the right hand of a German Nobel Laureate from Tübingen. El Naschie was able to hold his ground and defended his point of view admirably . I have seen him again at the 60th birthday celebration of the very famous Chaos scientist Otto Rössler, it was in Karlsruhe. I have seen him also 6 years ago when the University of Frankfurt honoured him with the title “distinguished fellow”. There is even an article in a book edited by Hans Diebner, Timothy Druckery and Peter Weibel with a paper by El Naschie of fractal spacetime and also a paper by Nottale on the same subject. Later on there was a celebration in Karlsruhe on the occasion of El Naschie `s 60th birthday. On this celebration the famous Professor Davbid Finkelstein attended and also Professor Dr. Walter Greiner arguably the most famous German Professor in Theoretical Physic. Needless to say I know Mohamed El Naschie very well personally. He does not know about this article yet but I know and I am very unhappy about it. AS far as I am concerned Mohamed El Naschie is as much a German as I am a German. But we are the German who learned tolerance and learned not to discriminated between anybody. We learned it the hard way after loosing World war II: I think those who won the war rightly won it should also learn now from us. Whatever the reason is that certain circle are giving Mohamed El Naschie always the shorter end of the stick they should know that it is unfair and unethical. It is the last thing which one expects from la crème de la crème of scientific establishment. I suggested to Mohamed jokingly that he should change his name but he answered politely but seriously no… never.
To whom it may concern,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe article fails to reference well-documented work done for almost 25 years by El Naschie, Ord, Nottale, Marek-Crnjak , Tanaka, Goldfain, Castro and many others on fractal (Cantorian) space-time. Please refer to a large body of papers published in "Chaos, Solitons and Fractals" (Elsevier) for a convincing proof of this unfortunate omission.
I am PhD student in the field of complexity and physics. Certainly, the authors of this article are not the first to (derive) that the number of space-time dimensions to be =~ 4. Moreover, as some commentators already outlined, many distinguished physicists will not tolerate the use of the word (derive) to describe a result that was (calculated) using (numerical) simulations. A real (derivation) of the very same result was obtained much earlier by El Naschie.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMoreover, the authors astonishingly skipped referring to many pioneers who led the way in what can be called fractal cosmology or fractal space-time research. Again I can assure that none of the authors of the present article is justifiable to claim to be the (first) to point out the fractal nature of space-time.
Any one interested to unveil the truth of my claims can simply google for the key wards like (fractal space time), (derivation of the number of space time dimensions),..... to make sure that the present authors are merely introducing a new and comparatively premature approach to a problem that many others tackled several years ago.
We awe the authors an explanation why they did skipped referring all these names.
Dear Sirs,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI can not believe my eyes when I have read the article titled "using causality to solve the puzzle of quantum spacetime" in the popular science magazine "Scientific American".
I read with a great deal of interest and a sizeable portion of disbelief the article published in the July issue of Scientific American. The subject is extremely interesting and many people working in topology of fractals like myself have been interested in this subject for some time. At least in the Middle East, if not in the whole world, this is due to the Egyptian scientist M.S. El Naschie. It was because of this that Prof. El Naschie was invited to Qatar about three years ago. He gave several lectures, one on nano technology and one on fractal Cantorian spacetime. At least the lecture on nano technology sparked a scientific revolution in the Middle East. However Prof. El Naschie's main real interest lies in high energy physics and his real contribution is in modeling spacetime using Cantor sets. He was able that way to derive exactly and from first principles, not only the dimensionality of spacetime but also the curvature of the manifold of quantum spacetime at the point of total unification of all fundamental forces. This is a point which has eluded scientists all over the world for the last 80 years at least. We have many Nobel laureates visiting Qatar on a regular basis but we have rarely had such stimulating lectures as those delivered by Prof. El Naschie.
In view of all the above I am at a loss of what to make from the fact that the said article in your Journal has totally ignored the contribution of Prof. El Naschie and his school. Not only that but they ascribe to themselves the honour of deriving for the first time and from first principles the dimensionality of spacetime which is historically blatantly untrue. The Authors may have indeed contributed in a non-trivial manner to the literature but they have committed a great scientific injustice to Prof. El Naschie and his colleagues.
I am both astonished and dismayed that the Authors of this article have obviously intentionally or unintentionally omitted to mention the name of the originator of the theory.
I sincerely hope that the Editorial Board of Scientific American will step in decisively and eliminate this injustice.
Yours sincerely,
Prof. S.I. Nada
Professor of Topology
University of Qatar, Doha, Qatar.
Dear Sirs,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI can not believe my eyes when I have read the article titled "using causality to solve the puzzle of quantum spacetime" in the popular science magazine "Scientific American".
I read with a great deal of interest and a sizeable portion of disbelief the article published in the July issue of Scientific American. The subject is extremely interesting and many people working in topology of fractals like myself have been interested in this subject for some time. At least in the Middle East, if not in the whole world, this is due to the Egyptian scientist M.S. El Naschie. It was because of this that Prof. El Naschie was invited to Qatar about three years ago. He gave several lectures, one on nano technology and one on fractal Cantorian spacetime. At least the lecture on nano technology sparked a scientific revolution in the Middle East. However Prof. El Naschie's main real interest lies in high energy physics and his real contribution is in modeling spacetime using Cantor sets. He was able that way to derive exactly and from first principles, not only the dimensionality of spacetime but also the curvature of the manifold of quantum spacetime at the point of total unification of all fundamental forces. This is a point which has eluded scientists all over the world for the last 80 years at least. We have many Nobel laureates visiting Qatar on a regular basis but we have rarely had such stimulating lectures as those delivered by Prof. El Naschie.
In view of all the above I am at a loss of what to make from the fact that the said article in your Journal has totally ignored the contribution of Prof. El Naschie and his school. Not only that but they ascribe to themselves the honour of deriving for the first time and from first principles the dimensionality of spacetime which is historically blatantly untrue. The Authors may have indeed contributed in a non-trivial manner to the literature but they have committed a great scientific injustice to Prof. El Naschie and his colleagues.
I am both astonished and dismayed that the Authors of this article have obviously intentionally or unintentionally omitted to mention the name of the originator of the theory.
I sincerely hope that the Editorial Board of Scientific American will step in decisively and eliminate this injustice.
Yours sincerely,
Prof. S.I. Nada
Professor of Topology
University of Qatar, Doha, Qatar.
It was a little bit of a shock to see that the inaccuracy and omission of the name of Mohamed El Naschie, his colleagues and school is not restricted to the article in Scientific American. The same wrong claim was made by the same authors from Nils Bohr institute in Copenhagen and Spinosa Institute in Utrecht is named in Physic Review Letters. The article was renamed
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPlanckian birth of a Quantum de sitter universe March 7th, 2008. He author renamed Fractals by a more mathematical word foliation . In addition they claimed to have achieved one of the holy grail of theoretical physics namely determining the dimensionality of spacetime. I add my voice to that of many people on this site. This is totally wrong and misleading the educated public. The first person to make a derivation of the dimensionality of spacetime was Mohamed El Naschie. No amount of wrong statement and pulling strings here and there will change the truth. I personally find that this is very damaging to the reputation of both Nils Bohr Institute and Spinosa Institute and all the wonderful great scientists working there. The more the authors delay admitting their mistake the more this will avalanche to something truly embarrassing to the entire scientific community in the west. May I also add something before it is published under another name with similar wrong claims. Mohamed
El Naschie has also determined from first principles the curvature of quantum spacetime at the point of quantum gravity unification. This work is not published in Physic Review Letters but it is published. Looking forward to hear a statement without any qualification apologizing to the scientific community about misleading them. Nobody is above making a mistake but nobody is also above apologizing for his or her mistake.
Franz Vollrath
To all that have voiced disapproval of the injustice done to Prof. El Naschie and the school of Cantorian space-time theory, I enclose here a copy of the letter I wrote to the Editor of Scientific American:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDear Editor,
I am writing to you on behalf of many colleagues of mine involved in the field of nonlinear dynamics, chaos and complexity theory. As a scientist working for many years in this field, I am appalled by the fact that the recent article "Using Causality to Solve the Puzzle of Quantum Space-Time" fails to give proper credit to a well documented body of concepts and ideas developed in the last 20 years and known as fractal (Cantorian) space-time model. The main contributors to this model are El Naschie, Ord, Nottale, Marek-Crnjak, Goldfain, Tanaka, Iovane, Castro, He and others. There is by now a large volume of papers and a number of conferences dedicated to this topic, see for instance Elsevier's "Chaos, Solitons and Fractals" and similar resources.
The net effect of this regrettable omission is that the general public is given a false account on how scientific ideas take shape and evolve. In the interest of objectivity and fairness, I respectfully request a note of correction from your office or from the authors of the article. It will help setting the record straight and restore honesty in scientific reporting.
With best regards,
Ervin Goldfain
Photonics CoE
Welch Allyn Inc.
USA
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI also did hear about fractal spacetime and the use of cantor sets to model spacetime when I was present at a conference in TURKEY in Istanbul Kultur University. The lecture was the opening lecture by Prof. El Naschie from Frankfurt University who spoke about complexity theory in high energy physics and related subjects. A summary of Prof. El Naschie’s lecture is in the proceedings on page 19. I am just like everyone else wondering why there is no mention of this fundamental work in this nice paper by Ambjorn and his co-authors.
quote: "..the number of dimensions came out as four (more precisely, as 4.02 � 0.1). It was the first time anyone had ever derived the observed number of dimensions from first principles."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBut are thet not starting from 4D simplices? then is it surprising they get a 4D universe? And why start with 4D simplices?
quote: "The idea of El Naschie was that the fractality of spacetime is the cause for the arrow of time and irreversibility."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCan someone explain this to me? How does fractality of spacetime cause the arrow of time and irreversibility?
As a Dutch national, I find it difficult to hide a sense of embarrassment expressing my opinion about this article. It is not only the respect I have for the Authors, but also the enormous respect and affection we have to the founding father and guiding light Gerrard tHooft who founded and led the physics institute at Utrecht where they work. He is not just a Nobel laureate; he is a gentleman of the highest scientific and personal qualities.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs far as fractals are concerned, this paper is littered with tens of elementary mistakes. It is also na�ve to think they have found any holy grail because they made a derivation of the four dimensionality of spacetime. Putting the computer simulation aside, it is still na�ve. Even Mohamed El Naschies exact derivation which precedes that of Spinoza Inst. by some 14 years is na�ve. El Naschie used Wittens broken mirror symmetry to find a fuzzy K3 K�hler manifold. Fuzzy or crisp K3 K�hler will always have four dimensions plus a Hausdorff dimension which is slightly larger than four and another slightly smaller than four. Since the correct physics came out of this K�hler manifold, it follows that it has all the correct spacetime dimensionalities and you hardly need any desktop to confirm that. Using El Naschies technique, the Authors paper in Classical & Quantum Gravity could be renamed The emergence of spacetime or Quantum gravity on your pocket calculator! The paper could even have a sequel doing the same thing by counting on our ten fingers such is the simplicity of El Naschies Cantor sets approach which my colleagues opted not to refer to and in the course of doing that ignored the lifelong work of deceased Nobel laureate Ilya Prigogine as well as many living relatively young scientists, notably Laurent Nottale, Garnet Ord, Ervin Goldfain and Ji-Huan He to mention only a few.
I think the sooner this story is closed in a way befitting the prestige of t Hooft, University of Utrecht and Holland the better it will be for everyone involved.
Dear alphachapmtl ,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn response to your question "How does fractality of spacetime cause the arrow of time and irreversibility?": It is believed that the fractal structure of space-time emerges at high energies, near or above the scale of the electroweak interaction (approx. 300 GeV). In this sector of particle physics one can no longer use traditional differential operators which, by definition, assume a "smooth" topology of the underlying space-time background. Instead one must employ fractal differential operators defined in the context of fractional calculus and non-equilibrium dynamics. This class of operators break the left/right spatial symmetry as well as the temporal symmetry. As a result, they describe irreversible dynamics. It is then possible to show that fractal operators can naturally explain breaking of parity (P) and temporal symmetry (aka CP violation) in electroweak interaction channels.
For additional informaton, please refer to the following articles:
E. Goldfain "Complexity in Quantum Field Theory and physics beyond the Standard Model" (Chaos, Solitons and Fractals)
E. Goldfain "Fractional dynamics and the Standard Model for particle physics" (Communications in Nonlinear Science and Numerical Simulation).
E. Goldfain "Fractional dynamics and the TeV regime of field theory"(Communications in Nonlinear Science and Numerical Simulation).
I define dimension as a simple concept, it is the degrees of freedom offered by nature for change of position or movement. Having said that, nature also restricts the number of degrees of freedom available. For example, it is obvious that we are free to select and roam at will any where in our familiar 3D space. But we do not have such freedom on the time dimension. We have to specify in advance, the time dimension if we are to achieve meeting an event. That is, time flows, and we have no control of that, nevertheless it is a real physical dimension. Why is there no other dimensions we can perceive? Or is it? may be extra dimensions do exist, but we cannot feel them or is out of bounds to us humans. Mathematically, we can invent any number of dimensions and manipulate them as we wish, as in super-string theories. They can also hide those extra dimensions mathematically by compacting them to a small enough dimensions, so that we cannot feel or see them. But eventually, they must face the reality of dimensions in nature.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI believe the new membrane/string theories are a step in the right direction, with no clear insight. According to what I comprehend, electromagnetic forces are confined to our good old 4D space-time
dimensions, they cannot travel into any other additional dimension if it exists. We and all matter are held together by electromagnetic forces alone. So there is no way we in turn can venture out and feel another dimension, because if we try to, electromagnetic forces will not be there to hold us together.
But gravity is a different beast. Gravity is able to not only live in the 4D space-time, but it can venture out to additional dimensions. I declare that there is at least one more additional extremely large closed 4th space dimension. Now gravity floods all 4 space dimensions at the onset from a gravitating body. Because gravity occupies all 4 dimensions, it is made very feeble compared to the electromagnetic force. So we see that there is another large dimension right under our nose, that we cannot feel(Let alone Newton and Einstein), but can be felt through gravity.
I have a comprehensive analysis of this and solutions to many problems hinted at my web site: http://cosmicdarkmatter.com/
K. Tissa Perera
I continue to be deeply perplexed as to why neither the authors of "The Self-Organizing Quantum Universe" nor the editors of Scientific American have acted to swiftly rectify the failure to properly acknowledge the "extensive" published work of Mohamed El Naschie that bears directly on this issue. It seems to me that the integrity of both Scientific American and the authors necessitates proper and immediate action on this egregious omission. The authors of the paper either were aware of his work, or certainly should have been. On July 21st I addressed this with a letter to the editors. It follows verbatim: As a regular reader and subscriber to your magazine, I found the fractal spacetime article by Jay Ambjorn, Jerzy Jurkiewicz and Renate Loll, The Self-Organizing Quantum Universe most intriguing. As editors, you continue to choose some of the most fascinating developments in the world of physics. And you really need to be commended on the service you are providing our reading public, especially those interested in doing their very best to conceptualize developments which are otherwise extremely difficult to visualize.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHowever, in this particular instance, I frankly was stunned by the oversight of the authors in failing to acknowledge the work already successfully accomplished in this area by Professor Mohamed El Naschie, a former prot/f Nobel laureate Ilya Prigogine. El Naschie is the recognized originator of the idea of using Cantor sets to rigorously deduce the topological dimension and the Hausdorff dimension of spacetime. As it turns out, the Hausdorff dimension of a random Cantor set is equal to the golden mean, a truly wonderful number which renders an otherwise intractable computation very simple to perform even without a computer. In 2006 I wrote a compact little book on this particular subject, The Golden Section: Natures Greatest Secret, published by Walker & Company, New York. In a brief appendix I summarized some of El Naschies findings in regard to quark and subatomic particle masses. Beginning with his 1994 paper, Is Quantum Space a Random Cantor Set with a Golden Mean Dimension at the Core? Professor El Naschie has written numerous scientific papers developing the ramifications of his incredible insight. As a philosopher of science deeply interested in the creativity, novelty, and proper recognition of precedence in hypothesis formation, I for one believe very strongly that this oversight in an otherwise splendid article must not go unaddressed. Thank you.
Thanks for the info and references!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNobel Laureates are also just human being. They are subject to the same ambitions, temptations and greed like anyone else. I know Gerardus
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thist Hooft longer than all of you and he is no exception. My guess is that if he wanted to prevent Dr. R. Loll and her colleagues, J. Ambjorn and J. Jurkiewicz from committing this not easy to forgive oversight of the work of Ord, El Naschie and Nottale he could have.
W.Teinus
Big deal!. &.Ambjorn and Loll start from four dimensional simplices tiling of spacetime and prove that it is four-dimensional.! Wow! We may as well say Penrose proved that the two dimensional plane is two dimensional using his two dimensional tiling.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI see little similarity to the work of El Naschie because he started with zero dimensional Wheelerlike fractal dust and then proved at infinity that there are two types of dimensions: first, a Menger-Uhryson dimension equal to exactly four and second, a Hausdorff dimension, one slightly larger and one slightly smaller than four. El Naschies work confirmed and generalized tHoofts dimensional regularization. Ambjorn and Loll by contrast prove the obvious.
Fraction is how energy disapates from a chosen Octave. Each octave is a condition of our existance, because of it's energy value. Interacting Key's per Octave, and 'of Octaves' produce phenomenon such as light...ect...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisA high Energy Octave, will effect all of the lower sympathetic frequencies, regardless of Octave, but a lower energy will have little effect on an upper Octave. Only if the combined sympathetic energies are numerous enough, will the effect a upper octave. If Mankind unite and one, only then will we advance.
http://focus.aps.org/story/v14/st13
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEmergence of a 4D World From Causal Quantum Gravity
J. Ambjorn, J. Jurkiewicz, and R. Loll
Phys. Rev. Lett. 93, 131301
(issue of 24 September 2004)
"The researchers added up all the possible spacetimes to see if something like a large-scale four-dimensional spacetime would emerge from the sum. That was not guaranteed, even though the tiny bits of spacetime were four-dimensional. On larger scales the spacetime could curve in ways that would effectively change its dimension, just as a two-dimensional sheet of paper can be wadded into a three-dimensional ball or rolled into a nearly one-dimensional tube. This time the researchers found that they could achieve something that appeared to have one time dimension and three space dimensions--like the universe we know and love."
This is a direct response to “ alphachapmtl” 8/17/08
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI am sorry this is not entirely correct.. Ambjorn, Loll and Jurkiewicz have indoctrinated the result by assuming 4 dimensional structure. They made the result biased to 4 dimensionality. In addition they did not mention genuine non-biased derivation of the 4 dimensionality of spacetime from first principle. I also had a look to the work of Ambjorn. The work in Scientific American is a rehash of his earlier work.. However this time he is using the fashionable terminology of fractal spacetime, Cantorian spacetime and the so called E-infinity theory. W.Teinus
Big deal…Ambjorn and Loll start from four dimensional simplices tiling of spacetime and prove that it is four dimensional! Wow! We may as well say Penrose proved that the two dimensional plane is two dimensional using his two dimensional tiling.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI see little similarity to the work of El Naschie because he started with zero dimensional Wheeler-like fractal dust and then proved at infinity that there are two types of dimensions: first a Menger-Uhryson dimension equal to exactly four and second, a Hausdorff dimension, one slightly larger and one slightly smaller than four. El Naschie’s work confirmed and generalized ‘tHooft’s dimensional regularization. Ambjorn and Loll by contrast prove the obvious.
It's easy to see negative energy. Again I will give you a example negative and positive energies. let's take a look at the rainbow. We have two rainbows, one above the other. You may notice that in between the two, there is a darkness, but towards the center, there is a brilliance.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBlackbody Energy is the harmonic that we get from our Sun. It has value and vector. If it were to collide with itself from an opposite direction (reflected), it becomes visible, in the form of white light. This is a half value of Blackbody energy (Quarter Octave). This is why the moon is mostly seen as white, except during a lunar eclipse. At this time it will appear to be orange. Light curves through our atmosphere, strikes the moon, and is reflected bach to earth. As the blackbody energy passes through our atmosphere, particle collisions ensue, and the energy value decreases from black, to violet, to indigo, to the blue that we see in the sky. It is this value that reaches the moon, and is reflected upon itself, towards us. this lower value cancelation results it the energy value of orange. It is said that we need all the colors of the rainbow to make white light,...that's wrong. The rainbow is actually of two parts,...negative and positive. Red, orange, and yellow are negative. Green, blue and violet are positive energies. The value that we call 'white', is positioned at the center of these. This puts white at the yellowgreen position. Now there are cancelation pairs, red and green (negative and positive), orange and blue (negative and positive), yellow and violet ( the 'hottest' neg. and pos). Any of these paired 'cancelations', will result in a yellowgreen value. Put two or more of these pairs together, and the value will increase to what we understand as whitelight. Remember the yellowgreen glass in the deserts of Egypt ? The only other place that it can be found, is at a necular blast site. There, the sands became 'white hot'. The result..., Yellowgreen glass. It's kinda like a visual of the thermal value. It's easy to 'see' negative energy once you understand it, and it's easy to understand through the Octave System.
The Golden Section is but an observation of adverages. It is not an absolute! It's like a carpenter using 17/12 as an angle ratio to a problem that he can't, or won't try to solved. The Golden Ratio is nothing more than a 'Rule of Thumb'.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBig deal…Ambjorn and Loll start from four dimensional simplices tiling of spacetime and prove that it is four dimensional! Wow! We may as well say Penrose proved that the two dimensional plane is two dimensional using his two dimensional tiling.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI see little similarity to the work of El Naschie because he started with zero dimensional Wheeler-like fractal dust and then proved at infinity that there are two types of dimensions: first, a Menger-Uhryson dimension equal to exactly four and second, a Hausdorff dimension, one slightly larger and one slightly smaller than four. El Naschie’s work confirmed and generalized ‘tHooft’s dimensional regularization. Ambjorn and Loll by contrast prove the obvious.
Nobel Laureates are also just human being. They are subject to the same ambitions, temptations and greed like anyone else. I know Gerardus
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thist Hooft longer than all of you and he is no exception. My guess is that if he wanted to prevent Dr. R. Loll and her colleagues, J. Ambjorn and J. Jurkiewicz from committing this not easy to forgive oversight of the work of Ord, El Naschie and Nottale he could have. W. Teinus
Dear Terry,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI fail to see any connection what so ever between your long remarks on the deserts of Egypt, negative energy and octave system and the subject matter of this site which is the papers on fractal spacetime and the relation between the work of Ambjorn and Loll to the work of Nottale, Ord and El Naschie. It is simple scientific courtesy not to discuss matters that are irrelevant to the main subject.
The comment by Terry regarding the Golden Mean being an average of observation is really a very deep and correct statement. Of course he may have meant it in a derogatory way but that does not change the fact that it is a deep observation, correct and reflects the enormous importance of the Golden Mean in mathematical size. It is exactly what Mohamed El Naschie wrote explicitly in his article Multi-dimensional Cantor sets in classical and quantum mechanics published 1992 in Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, Vol. 2, Nos. 2, pp. 211-220. In appendix 2, p. 220 of this paper he wrote
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSeen this way our choice of the Hausdorff dimension of a triadic set namely log 2 divided by log 3 is justified a postriori by its numerical proximity to the Golden Mean because the Golden Mean represents in some vague sense an average of all possible backbone Cantor sets lying in the unit interval .
It seems to have taken El Naschie a year or so to realize that a random triadic Cantor set possess with a probability equal 1 a Golden Mean as a Hausdorff dimension. He obviously did not know about the theorem of Maldine and Williams at that time. Had he known about it, it would have saved him a lot of work. The derivation of El Naschie started from scratch and proved the theorem of Maldine and Williams in four dimensions. That is how he was able to find out that the Hausdorff dimension of fractal spacetime is given by the inverse of the Golden Mean to the power of 3 which means 4.23606799. It then took him six years or so to derive the exact value of the corresponding spacetime curvature of a fractal spacetime manifold which turned out to be 26.18033989. Clearly the internal energy of such space is proportioned to the square of this number which is approximately 685.4. It was only one year ago that El Naschie was able to prove that this value is equal to summing over all the so called two and three Stein spaces. There are 17 of them corresponding to the 17 two dimensional crystallographic groups. The finite conclusion of this nice discovery was the E12 quasi exceptional Lie group of Munroe. The dimension of this group is 685.4. Such is the power of statistical averaging of observation invested in the Golden Mean. It should be noted that the Golden Mean appears in all branches of science and art. In El Naschies theory it simply popped out from topological considerations and mathematical calculations. It was neither put in by hand nor was it indeed expected. Nature is clearly cleverer than all of us combined and we should learn from nature as opposed to making fun of it. In this sense and only in this sense we fully agree with Terrys remark.
It is probably a sign of the the great depth of a concept, idea or theory that even when one attempts to denigrate it (as Terry K. appears to try to do in his 8/18 comment), the attack actually ends up supporting it. Terry's attempt to dismiss the Golden Mean as nothing but an average backfires (as correctly observed by T. Magyar in his insightful 8/20 response). Anyone who knows statistical mechanics and how it correlates natural processes must be aware that it is an observational average that makes it relevant. By calling the Golden Mean an observational average, Terry unintentionally reveals a profound "ontological" fact about why it appears so often throughout the fabric of nature, as well as, in pure and applied mathematics. There is good reason why, for example, the ideal divergence angle in phyllotaxis (leaf arrangement) is 137.5 degrees (360 divided by the Golden Mean squared or by 2.6180339...). [Note: as an important point of clarification re: the Golden Mean itself, I am here using the Golden Mean in its "greater" form, namely, 1.6180339.... El Naschie tends to prefer the Golden Mean in its "lesser" form or 0.6180339..., equally legitimate, and would therefore express the same 137.5 degree phyllotactic divergence angle as the result of multiplying 360 degrees by the Golden Mean squared or by 0.3819660...].
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisword "observational" inadvertantly deleted:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt is probably a sign of the the great depth of a concept, idea or theory that even when one attempts to denigrate it (as Terry K. appears to try to do in his 8/18 comment), the attack actually ends up supporting it. Terry's attempt to dismiss the Golden Mean as nothing but an "observational average" backfires (as correctly observed by T. Magyar in his insightful 8/20 response). Anyone who knows statistical mechanics and how it correlates natural processes must be aware that it is an observational average that makes it relevant. By calling the Golden Mean an observational average, Terry unintentionally reveals a profound "ontological" fact about why it appears so often throughout the fabric of nature, as well as, in pure and applied mathematics. There is good reason why, for example, the ideal divergence angle in phyllotaxis (leaf arrangement) is 137.5 degrees (360 divided by the Golden Mean squared or by 2.6180339...). [Note: as an important point of clarification re: the Golden Mean itself, I am here using the Golden Mean in its "greater" form, namely, 1.6180339.... El Naschie tends to prefer the Golden Mean in its "lesser" form or 0.6180339..., equally legitimate, and would therefore express the same 137.5 degree phyllotactic divergence angle as the result of multiplying 360 degrees by the Golden Mean squared or by 0.3819660...].
As someone who has been working closely for many years on Cantorian Fractal
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSpacetime, I find it rather difficult to either abstain from expressing my
opinion or to express my opinion on this site. The last thing I like in all my
scientific as well as personal life is controversy, allegation and counter
allegation. This is all too distasteful for me. However, I think science should
be an exception and one must be able to talk about facts without the
slightest embarrassment. I believe as a scientist, our only obligation is towards the
truth. In this sense I find nothing better to express the truth than to
refer to El Naschies paper which dates back to the year 1991, almost 17 years
ago (link: _http://rapidshare.com/files/138459869/sdarticle.pdf.html_
(http://rapidshare.com/files/138459869/sdarticle.pdf.html) ). This paper is
published in Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, issue no 5 and is titled: Quantum Mechanics
and the Possibility of a Cantorian Space-Time. You need to read the paper in
full and it is very short exactly 2 pages and the references. For the
convenience of the visitor of this site, I would like to repeat the last four lines
of this paper verbatim: There are thus real reasons to hope that some
sophisticated mathematics, coupled with the present simplistic geometrical picture
may show that space-time is Cantorian and a Peano-like structure in the small
scale, while it recovers its Euclidian flat outlook on our scale only to
finally become Riemannian on the large scale [7]. It is remarkable that space
and time decouples only in our intermediate world .
I am sure the readers of this site are all highly informed and intelligent
to make up their minds without any help from anyone once they are offered the
facts. And here is another fact which I didnt initially know: In the first
issue of Chaos, Solitons & Fractals which appeared in 1991, the well-known
Polish scientist Thomas Kapitaniak from the University of Lodz in Poland wrote a
paper titled On Strange Nonchaotic Attractors and their Dimensions in which
he made extensive use of Mohamed El Naschies theory of multi-dimensional
cantor sets. In addition, in this paper he made reference to published work by
El Naschie dating back to 1990. This is 18 years ago and El Naschies theory
was also known in Poland. When you consider that a published paper in those
days takes at least two years to appear on average and that a research must
take two to three years to mature for publication, it becomes evident that the
theory of Cantorian Spacetime dates back to some twenty years ago. As they
say in England with this I rest my case.
Dr. Leila Marek-Crnjac University of Ljubljana, Slovenia
As someone who has been working closely for many years on Cantorian Fractal
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSpacetime, I find it rather difficult to either abstain from expressing my
opinion or to express my opinion on this site. The last thing I like in all my
scientific as well as personal life is controversy, allegation and counter
allegation. This is all too distasteful for me. However, I think science should
be an exception and one must be able to talk about facts without the
slightest embarrassment. I believe as a scientist, our only obligation is towards the
truth. In this sense I find nothing better to express the truth than to
refer to El Naschie’s paper which dates back to the year 1991, almost 17 years
ago (link: _http://rapidshare.com/files/138459869/sdarticle.pdf.html_
(http://rapidshare.com/files/138459869/sdarticle.pdf.html) ). This paper is
published in Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, issue no 5 and is titled: Quantum Mechanics
and the Possibility of a Cantorian Space-Time. You need to read the paper in
full and it is very short exactly 2 pages and the references. For the
convenience of the visitor of this site, I would like to repeat the last four lines
of this paper verbatim: “There are thus real reasons to hope that some
sophisticated mathematics, coupled with the present simplistic geometrical picture
may show that space-time is Cantorian and a Peano-like structure in the small
scale, while it recovers its Euclidian flat outlook on our scale only to
finally become Riemannian on the large scale [7]. It is remarkable that space
and time decouples only in our intermediate world”.
I am sure the readers of this site are all highly informed and intelligent
to make up their minds without any help from anyone once they are offered the
facts. And here is another fact which I didn’t initially know: In the first
issue of Chaos, Solitons & Fractals which appeared in 1991, the well-known
Polish scientist Thomas Kapitaniak from the University of Lodz in Poland wrote a
paper titled On Strange Nonchaotic Attractors and their Dimensions in which
he made extensive use of Mohamed El Naschie’s theory of multi-dimensional
cantor sets. In addition, in this paper he made reference to published work by
El Naschie dating back to 1990. This is 18 years ago and El Naschie’s theory
was also known in Poland. When you consider that a published paper in those
days takes at least two years to appear on average and that a research must
take two to three years to mature for publication, it becomes evident that the
theory of Cantorian Spacetime dates back to some twenty years ago. As they
say in England with this I rest my case.
Dr. Leila Marek-Crnjac – University of Ljubljana, Slovenia
People will be excused to wonder what all the fuss about fractal spacetime is. Rather than getting involved in the somewhat heated priority discussion, I decided to look into the worth and value of this concept and why should it matter so much that two leading centres of quantum gravity in Europe decide to devote so much time to this subject although it was around for at least 23 years. I made some effort to read the publication of Ord, Nottale, Goldfain, Prigogine and particularly Mohamed El Naschie. If I am correct it turns out then this cantorial fractal approach must be the egg of the Columbus. Let me list some of the problems which this approach solved by one stroke.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this1. Fractal fuzziness blurs the demarcation line between classical spacetime symmetries and internal gauge symmetries. The result is an elimination of what physicists call gauge anomalies. This is a big problem in physics and occupies many physicists attempting to solve it. It is the reason behind the difficulties of unifying gravity with the other fundamental forces.
2. Because a random cantor set which is the simplest form of fractals has a Hausdorff dimension equal to the golden mean calculation using this theory becomes ingeniously simple. Some may find it embarrassingly simple. It is of course a matter of taste and personal philosophy. One has to decide if the objective of science is understanding nature in the simplest of terms or demonstrating mathematical skills and overcoming horrendous amounts of calculation.
There is also a misunderstanding about the contradiction between integers and irrational numbers. Some physicists wrongly think that since statistical mechanics is all about counting then a fundamental theory must admit only integers at the end of the day so that we can count. However this is fundamentally flawed. We can count from zero to infinity objects which are unaccountably infinite. In other words in the fractal cantorian spacetime approach we have countably infinite numbers of cantor sets but the cantor sets themselves have uncountable infinitely many points. When introducing hierarchy then all these infinities sum up to a finite value. This was the great surprise I found in the work of Mohamed El Naschie. He gives two finite values for what is essentially unaccountably infinite, In other words, he found an expectation value for them. The two values are: a Hausdorff dimension equal 4.23606799 for the dimensionality of fractal spacetime and a curvature equal 26.180339899 for the spacetime manifold described by the dimensionality abovementioned.
The work on fractal and cantorian spacetime seems to me to be a successful implementation of the program of Lotfi A. Zadeh, the great Iranian-born American Professor of Engineering who invented fuzzy set theory and fuzzy logic. This work did not remain theoretical philosophical work; it was the basis for the invention of Kalman filter. Without the invention of Kalman filter half of our modern civilization would have disappeared. Somebody has recently remarked that El Naschie has given quantum field theory a Kalman filter. Such a statement is counter productive. It just invites controversy and let me be honest also jealousy. However, what we need is a cool detached debate. As far as I am concerned the cantorian fractal spacetime approach is worth the effort.
Abosolutely the most fascinating article about quantum gravity I've read in a long time.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis is the most interesting article about quantum gravity I've read in a long time. I hope their theory is on the right track.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn connection with the priority quarrel about fractal spacetime and cantorian geometry, I am reminded of two recent articles which I have read in Physics World. The first is an editorial with the title: Breaking Through, Physics World, Vol. 21, no 7, July 2008. The writer of the editorial conceded that those outside the mainstream can find it hard to make worthwhile scientific contributions. He cited as one example the case of Garrett Lisi. What I find even worse is that when non main stream scientists find a truly remarkable theory then they are not even cited when other scientists of the mainstream realize the value of their theories. It is a matter of record that the word fractal spacetime was coined twenty three years ago by Garnett Ord. Similarly it is a matter of record that M. S. El Naschie gave the first derivation not only of the dimensionality of fractal spacetime but also the curvature of the corresponding spacetime manifold. It is very bitter for those working in less famous institutes and universities particularly in the developing world to see a certain degree of exploitation of their scientific products. Many in the developing world feel that this is a continuation of the old colonial style economic exploitation carried on in modern times by different means.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn the second article by Jim Grozier in the same issue of Physics World titled: Breaking the Grey Ceiling, the author laments prejudice against those who obtain a physics degree at middle age by taking a second route to higher education. It doesn’t matter how good such a physicist is, he is given always a less than fair chance. The author cites many people who are against such discrimination, notably Nobel Laureate Gerard ‘tHooft. ‘tHooft wanted people with different backgrounds and education to get interested in theoretical physics. Was it not Einstein’s nonconformist and non-conventional career which ultimately led him to his new and great ideas? So again here I ask: Why is the remarkable discrimination against an unusual Engineering Scientist who after working himself to an applied mathematician became an original theoretical physicist?
When we start practicing what we preach I will start believing that the trouble with physics has ended.
The remark made by Goran Hajerdal is a correct and informative but incomplete. One very important aspect of fractal cantorian spacetime is the time symmetry breaking. It explains irreversibility. Fuzziness is an important concept here. Therefore it is not only the removal of clashes between symmetries and the simplicity of working with golden mean binary but it is also irreversibility at a fundamental level which characterizes the power of fractal spacetime. This concept was taken over in the work of Ambjorn and Loll. Of course they should have mentioned the original sources of these ideas but this is not my concern at this point. What I would like is give a simple analogy which I heard in a lecture and was attributed to Mohamed El Naschie. Suppose you are running in a rainforest escaping from something and there are hundreds of thousands of similar trees in your way. You have at every junction to decide whether to go left or right depending on what you found easier at the spur of the moment where the trees are similar but not identical and they vary in size with the terrain. After half an hour or even much less you decide to go back. It is virtually impossible to find exactly your way back. The reason is the intrinsic randomness of your path from A to B. This is exactly what happened in a fractal spacetime. Exact irreversibility is fundamentally impossible. I think Goldfain explained the same effect in an earlier communication but in a more mathematical form and jargon which may have been difficult for some to comprehend. It is for this reason and many many others that I believe that the fractal cantorian spacetime is one of the most original and most promising proposals ever been made in theoretical physics in the last 50 years at least. A very great man once said that if he were able to see far, then that was because he was standing on the shoulder of giants. For the very same reasons, I think that fractal spacetime and E-Infinity theory are indebted in the same manner to string theory, loop quantum mechanics, non-commutative geometry, twistors theory, quantum field theory and more than anything else to the pioneering work in nonlinear dynamics and fractals. A true scientific revolution was made by Mitchell Feigenbaum, David Ruelle and Mandelbrot.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDear Sammy Cohen and Goran Hajerdal,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThank you for your kind remarks, on behalf of all that contributed to the Cantorian space-time model. For an in-depth discussion on how the underlying fractal structure of space-time explains breaking of time and space reflection symmetries, please refer to:
doi:10.1016/j.cnsns.2006.12.007
doi:10.1016/j.cnsns.2006.06.001
doi:10.1016/j.cnsns.2008.07.017
I gave a condensed down-to-earth explanation of these ideas in my posting of 08/12/08.
Regards,
Ervin Goldfain
Could someone explain to me the difference between the work of Ambjorn and Loll and numerology? But when a computer comes with the same thing is it then respectable? I see slight difference but not much. In all events, I find the authors claims inflated and hard to swallow regardless whether they quoted Mohamed EL Naschie and Co. or not.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI fully agree that the work of Feigenbaum is a real scientific revolution. Superficial scientists in love with highly complicated algebra and complex exact solutions of non linear partial differential equations are not getting the real message. These guys who are applying non linear dynamics and chaos in quantum gravity as done in this article in Scientific American are not getting the point either. They are experts in quantum field theory and think they can pick up non linear dynamics along the way. They are mistaken. You must learn fractals seriously before attempting to apply it or else you will have these horrendous mistakes committed in the concerned article. Even the fractal images in this article do not correspond to what the authors want to explain. In fact they neither use fractals theory nor any of the novel techniques of modern non linear dynamics, complexity theory or deterministic chaos. Their work is a caricature of what Ambjorn has done many years ago but this time dressed as in a masquerade using fractal spacetime terminology. The work may look superficially to be related to Nottale and El Naschie’s work but it is not. It is an extremely superficial article written mainly with publicity in mind more than anything else.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDear Mr. Wayne, In connection to your comment, I mention that Feigenbaum's route to chaos has been extensively used by Goldfain and El Naschie to derive the spectrum of elementary particle masses and couplings. See for instance:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.iop.org/EJ/abstract/0295-5075/82/1/11001,
doi:10.1016/j.chaos.2006.08.014 ,
http://direct.bl.uk/bld/PlaceOrder.do?UIN=229708841&ETOC=RN&from=searchengine,
Regards, Ervin Goldfain
If Ambjorn, Loll and their co-authors have overlooked so many contributions, this could not be only their mistake, or else what is the role and function if any of the so-called referees and peer review system.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOne thing I cannot understand is the reason behind the silence of the principal three scientists whose rights have been flagrantly violated. No comment from Nottale, Ord or El Naschie. I could understand to a certain extent that Nottale has given up after the vicious attacks on him in France by certain members of the so-called mainstream. I understand much less Garnett Ord who himself is a member of the mainstream group at the Perimeter Institute in Waterloo, Canada and a friend of a powerful figure such as Lee Smolin. However, upon my word, I have no understanding whatsoever for a strong, independent and articulate scientist as Mohamed El Naschie. He is almost invisible, preferring to duck or even let his students, friends and colleagues talk on his behalf. This is not what I would expect from a man with his stature. If he feels and he may have indeed a point that someone has snatched his work, he should stand up and say so.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFrom reading all the comments in this site and reviewing facts and the published literature, I must in all honesty say the peer review system has fallen short of what it is supposed to do in this particular case. Vince
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI must admit to being impressed by the high scientific quality of this Scientific American site. Reading it is educational. Most comments are serious and to the point. I wish all the other sites and blogs were like this one and devoid of the nonsense we are subjected to elsewhere.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCould the authors of this article be so kind so as to take a little time to answer at least some of the remarks and questions posed on this site. That would be very helpful for a better appreciation of the scientific value of this excellent new theory.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNew Comments?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAstonishingly the name of Prof. Mohamed El Naschie, the Egyptian Engineering Scientist appeared in Scientific American in connection with fractal spacetime in the September issue of 1995. It is not the regular scientific issue I am referring to but a French translation titled Pour La Science. It is the official French translation of Scientific American. Being originally from a North African Arab country, I am one of the very few people in Kuwait whose second language is French rather than English. Although Scientific American is translated in Arabic, I always find it much easier to read in French. The article I am referring to is written by the renowned French Astrophysicist, Laurent Nottale. The French title of the article is L’espace-temps fractal and it is on page 34-41. Nottale made clear reference to Garnett Ord as well as Otto Rossler and Nobel Laureate Ilya Prigogine. He mentioned of course Mohamed El Naschie as well as Feynman and Einstein. Therefore it is extremely difficult to explain the failure of Dr. Ambjorn, and Dr. Loll to cite and properly refer to an article published in Scientific American on fractal spacetime particularly when this article was published 13 years ago. Mohamed El Naschie is probably the most famous physicist in Arabia and appears regularly in a scientific TV program every week since several years. His program is regularly seen by scientifically interested lay people and he has spoken also about his own research in these very broad philosophical and artistic informal programs. I find it difficult to believe that he is a low-key person in the West. Such a high profile person is not easy to overlook unless the intention is to overlook him. I am not of the opinion of so many people here that it is a racially and ethnically motivated action not to cite his fundamental contribution. I think this would be a very far shot. The simple fact is that Garnett Ord is English-Canadian and Christian, Nottale is a Frenchman, Nobel Laureate Ilya Prigogine is from Russian Jewish ancestry while the famous chaos scientist Prof. Otto Rossler is German and M. El Naschie is a cosmopolitan Muslim. All these scientists are close friends and collaborated together for many years. For this reason I reject any theory about racial or religious discrimination. I am at a loss however at finding a good reason for what happened and how it did happen particularly because Scientific American policy is to always refer as much as possible to articles published in Scientific American. Do not ask me now how the author and the referee of this paper have overlooked the paper of Nottale published in Scientific American and titled simply fractal spacetime.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisInitially the article seemed interesting. However as I read more carefully I started forming another opinion. It seems to me that Dr. Loll, Dr. Ambjorn and Dr. Jurkiewicz have been proving their assumption. They assumed four dimensional simplexes and proved that spacetime is four-dimensional. They also assumed orderly causal and sequential events and proved that their manifold is orderly. This is all really hardly surprising. But then out of nowhere fractals appear like a genie coming from Aladdin’s lamp. The only excuse for using the word fractal is that the authors are using the word Hausdorff dimension. But what a Hausdorff dimension are they using? The authors seem to think that whenever they obtain a non integer value, then it is a Hausdorff dimension. This is grotesque for two reasons. First a numerical method and particularly a computer are well known for not giving an integer answer. If everything non integer would mean a Hausdorff dimension this would be the end of fractals as science. Second as well known a two dimensional Peano Hilbert curve has a Hausdorff dimension exactly two. In three dimensions the Hausdorff dimension is exactly three. In fact this was the starting point of the work of Mohamed El Naschie in the late eighties. My final verdict is that if I would be the Director of the Physics Institute in Utrecht, I would start thinking seriously about a reshuffle in my department.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe present dispute is very different from anything we have seen in the past. I do not know of any historical precedence. The reasons are as follows: One, Ambjorn and Loll express themselves in no ambiguous terms that they are the first to derive the dimensionality of spacetime from first principle. What one would think is that a scientist must research the subject thoroughly before making such a strong claim. The authors should have researched the subject with such intensity to match the intensity of their claim. So in other words it is not an ordinary case of omitting mentioning a reference. Second, the subject matter is not a run of the mill idea. It is something very fundamental and is on the cutting edge of research frontiers. Therefore you would think that people will research the subject in sufficient depth so that they do not omit mentioning the founders of the field. Garnett Ord, Laurent Nottale and Mohamed El Naschie founded Fractal Cantorian Spacetime theory. Again this is not an ordinary omission. This is a fundamental false claim. Third, Sometimes things are rediscovered almost simultaneously or with short intervals separating them. In the present case however, we are talking not about a year or two but a decade or two. Ord’s paper on fractal spacetime was published in a Journal of the British Institute of Physics in 1983. Mohamed El Naschie’s paper on the subject started appearing in the late 80’s. Laurent Nottale’s work appeared in 1995 in Scientific American. So how could anybody in the age of the worldwide web claim to have overlooked these fundamental contributions unless it is intentional? Four, the three main founders of the theory are not obscure scientists working in obscure places. Nottale is a high profile scientist, well-known nationally and internationally. Garnett Ord works in the Perimeter Institute which is one of the main Centres of excellence of quantum gravity in the whole world. Mohamed El Naschie is probably the best known engineer, scientist in Arabia and was for 11 years affiliated with the Department of Applied Mathematics and Physics in Cambridge, England and was honored for his contribution to science in Germany, China, India, Turkey and countless other places. In short it is very difficult to overlook these scientists. I even have read somewhere that Mohamed El Naschie has been lately many times in the University of Utrecht and hence he is not an unknown quantity. Five, the problem is of course aggravated and not made simpler by the worth and value of the authors of this Scientific American article. They are excellent people with excellent research records. They neither need fame nor recognition. Plagiarism is committed everywhere in the world almost every day. These people however are mostly obscure scientists in obscure places desperate for promotion, salary raises and funding. But in this particular case we are dealing with la crème de la crème of science. They are people who have simply everything.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWe could say that the lure of being the first one to discover spacetime being a paradigm shift and probably a milestone in the history of physics prove too strong to resist. However, quite honestly I find this also difficult to believe because of the respect I have for all of these scientists.
I have worked in my Ph.D. thesis on fractal spacetime and fuzzy exceptional Lie groups. This is truly a fascinating subject. My deep hope is that this problem just evaporates in thin air. It would be wonderful if we find a simple explanation for all what happened and join forces to explore nature rather than spending time exchanging accusations.
I read once a beautiful paper by the late Richard P. Feynman published in the International Journal of Theoretical Physics 1982 Simulating Physics with Computers . The ingenuity of the method employed by Mohamed El Naschies version of fractal spacetime is that he can simulate physics without a computer. It is a great pity that Prof. Ambjorn and Prof. Loll did not know about this approach.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisJ. OConnor
An unexpected turn of events and news for everyone is that it seems with a great likelihood that the first and I repeat the first systematic derivation of the dimension of spacetime from first principle is due to Prof. Dr. Saleh Al-Athel. His paper appeared in 1996 in a monograph published by the British Publisher Pergamon Press which meantime belongs to Elsevier Science Publishing in Amsterdam. His Excellency is well known to me as well as to every Arab scientist not only in Saudi Arabia, because he was until very recently the President of King Abdel Aziz City for Science and Technology in Riyadh, but also because he is one of the most distinguished scientists and astronautical engineers in Arabia. This City acronymed KACST is Saudi Arabia’s Ministry for Science and Technology. His Excellency was therefore the Minister representing Saudi Arabia internationally in this capacity. Unlike other Ministers he reports directly to the King, such is his prestige. Prof. Al Athel got all his degrees from the United States and got his Ph.D. from Stanford University. He passed all his exams with distinction throughout his life and with highest honors. He decided however that serving his country is his first priority at that time. Prof. Al Athel could have had a Nobel Prize at least had he decided otherwise. I find therefore that it is totally inappropriate that the authors of the said article did not cite this important work which predated their paper in Scientific American by at least 12 years. Quite honestly I find it embarrassing to have to talk on behalf of such a great man but such is his modesty and generosity that he never cared about priority. Somewhere people have to draw the line and I felt compelled that I should say what I said here.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe comment by Mirza is correct but the readers of this site may want to know where to find this article. It is in a Special Issue with the title FRACTAL SPACE-TIME AND CANTORIAN GEOMETRY IN QUANTUM MECHANICS. It is edited by M.S. El Naschie, L. Nottale and G. Ord. It is Vol. 7, No. 6, June 1996, page 873-875.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisProf. Al Athel is indeed an outstanding scientist from one of the best families in Saudi Arabia. He built Saudi science almost from the datum. He is an astronautical engineer specialized in satellites but with strong interests in everything. He is a very moral and pious Moslem and everyone who met him loved and respected him. I saw him in Alexandria at a conference named Einstein in Egypt. It was a celebration of the Einstein century held in Bibliotheca Alexandrina, Alexandria. He was in a delegation from Saudi Arabia. The other person was Dr. Daham Alani, a famous Arabist who got a degree in biochemistry from France. I read the paper of Prof. Al Athel because I am working on this subject and many in the University of Alexandria are applying to do their Ph.D. on the subject. Unlike the Authors of the Scientific American article, Prof. Al Athel refers to everybody before him. For instance he refers to H.D. Nielson from Niels Bohr Inst. in Denmark where Dr. Ambjorn works and who has written a very nice article with the title Why do we live in 3 + 1 dimensions. He also refers to Finkelstein, K. Menger, M.S. El Naschie, J.A. Wheeler, K. Svozil, R. Mirman, J.D. Barrow and F.J. Tipler and the famous English mathematician J. Hemion. I can only add my humble voice to so many before me that disregarding the work of so many people is not acceptable. However disregarding Prof. Al Athels priority is for us in Arabia unforgivable.
Ayman El-Okaby
Dept. of Physics
University of Alexandria, Egypt.
Adulation just as defamation is thoroughly foreign to the scientific thinking. Some of the commentators on the present subject must decide if they are writing to a scientific Journal or to the Holy Seal. Saying this research is led by a Nobel Laureate and is coming from a Center of Excellence is not a scientific argument and if anything it shows a certain degree of lethargy and mental laziness of someone unwilling to spend the time and effort to come to the right conclusion. The Logic in the paper of J. Ambjorn and R. Loll is deficient even though they work in a Center of Excellence led by a Nobel Laureate. Even a non-scientist will raise an eyebrow or even two at the proposition that the 3D clots in a glass of milk when lemon juice is added to it is a proof that the glass is three dimensional and the clots possess a Hausdorff dimension below or above three by a margin of the error of measurement.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOf course it is possible to give an exact mathematical derivation of the Hausdorff and topological dimension of spacetime from first principle and the modern mathematical physics literature is meantime abound with such derivations which have been inspired by El Naschie’s reformulations of J. A. Wheelers Borel set conjecture. A particularly neat derivation of this dimension is due to a British topologist working in the University of Bielefeld in Germany, Geoffrey Hemion. His paper is titled: A Class of Partially Ordered Sets published in an Elsevier Journal and may be found in Elsevier sciencedirect. Those willing to spend the time and effort to learn could also look up a good paper in the same direction by the notable Spanish Theoretical Physicist E. Alvarez et al published in a book edited by Mohamed El Naschie, Otto Rossler and Ilya Prigogine or should I say Nobel Laureate Ilya Prigogine to give it more metaphysical weight. It is published in 1995 by Pergamon-Elsevier ISBN 0080420273, Oxford-UK. The author of this article concluded that a “three dimensional bum in the center and the border is fractal-like with fractional dimension 1.5” The authors thus used the scientific method and language. Their work is explicit and analytical not a computer-simulation. They said they found something fractal-like but not fractal and they said the fractal dimension of the surface is 1.5 and not that the Hausdorff dimension is 1.5. Thus they did not try to impress the reader with mathematical jargon. To call the computer simulation of the authors of the Scientific American article discovering fractal spacetime and call their result a Hausdorff dimension is at a minimum a painful stretch. By the way Dr. Loll published a paper in Classical and Quantum Gravity which is essentially the same paper of Scientific American with an addition of a very nicely drawn caricature showing Dr. Loll examining with a loop the fractal structure at the Planck length. What a pity that this nice caricature is wrong. If you are searching for fractal structure the last place you want to search for is at the Planck length. It was probably the mistake of Mandelbrot to have called one of his pictures fractal spacetime form. But Mandelbrot was very honest in his book and he gave the user a warning and wrote that he knows very little about quantum gravity and cosmology.
S. J. Rodriguez
Could we at least for a moment leave the question of who discovered Cantorian-fractal spacetime first and dwell a little more on the scientific content of the theory? For such a purpose the article in Scientific American is not ideally suited. It is the version published in Physical Review Letter which gives more scientific information on the subject. The article is called Planckian Birth of a Quantum de Sitter Universe, Physical Review Letters, PRL 100, 091304(2008). Already the introduction gives us an idea about the importance of the work and leaves very little space for misunderstanding what the authors see their work is all about. So let me quote the opening lines: “To show that the physical spacetime surrounding us can be derived from some fundamental quantum dynamical principle is one of the holy grails of theoretical physics.” Subsequently, the authors stress that in their work: ”The challenge is to obtain this from a
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisbackground-independent formulation where no background spacetime is put in by hand.” In the next section titled Macroscopic de Sitter universe the authors set the stage for what they are intending to do. They will: 1. Use four-dimensional simplices. 2. Will respect global foliation in discrete proper time. 3. Will use Einstein-Hilbert action on piecewise linear geometries. 4. Using Monte Carlo simulation they will insist on a fixed four-volume and I am still quoting word by word from the said paper.
As a result the authors say that they obtained or observed again in their own words: “The emergence of a four-dimension universe.”
Now let us look at a decisive point in the analysis leading to this result. In the Lagrangian involved in the action given by equation no 4 of their paper, the authors introduced a Lagrangian multiplier. Now anyone versed in the calculus of variations knows exactly the meaning of this Lagrangian multiplier. It is imposing an additional force to make the equation of motion respect an auxiliary condition. In the analysis of Ambjorn, Jurkiewicz and Loll this auxiliary condition is that the total volume should be a four-dimensional volume. I don’t like sarcasm in the context of a scientific discussion and I definitely do not mean to be sarcastic when I genuinely ask: If you take four-dimensional simplices and an Einstein-Hilbert action with an auxiliary condition enforcing four-dimensional volume via a Lagrangian multiplier, is it the least surprising that you should retrieve a four-dimensional manifold for spacetime? I don’t want to say that the authors
indoctrinated the result as some have remarked on various blogs worldwide but I would say the authors required four-dimensionality, did put it by hand and logically found it at the end. Ergo there is no question that the de Sitter Universe was born out of very simple or primitive assumption and giving a genuinely four-dimensional spacetime as the authors state at the end of the first column of the second page of their work.
I did not read the work of Mohamed El Naschie with sufficient depth to comment on it and on its relation to the work of Ambjorn et al. However, it seems to me that El Naschie is working with the simplest yet most complex structure known in geometry and topology. These are the elementary triadic but random Cantor sets. Somehow then he arrived at a topological dimension of 4 and a Hausdorff dimension equal to 4 + 0.23606. If his derivation is correct then this would be deriving the dimensionality of spacetime from elementary first principles.
Having said that I am of the definite opinion that the work of Ambjorn and Loll marks the beginning of a very important phase on the road to discovering the correct theory for quantum gravity and this conclusion will remain valid whether or not they have studied the literature with sufficient meticulousness.
Could we at least for a moment leave the question of who discovered Cantorian-fractal spacetime first and dwell a little more on the scientific content of the theory? For such a purpose the article in Scientific American is not ideally suited. It is the version published in Physical Review Letter which gives more scientific information on the subject. The article is called Planckian Birth of a Quantum de Sitter Universe, Physical Review Letters, PRL 100, 091304(2008). Already the introduction gives us an idea about the importance of the work and leaves very little space for misunderstanding what the authors see their work is all about. So let me quote the opening lines: “To show that the physical spacetime surrounding us can be derived from some fundamental quantum dynamical principle is one of the holy grails of theoretical physics.” Subsequently, the authors stress that in their work: ”The challenge is to obtain this from a
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisbackground-independent formulation where no background spacetime is put in by hand.” In the next section titled Macroscopic de Sitter universe the authors set the stage for what they are intending to do. They will: 1. Use four-dimensional simplices. 2. Will respect global foliation in discrete proper time. 3. Will use Einstein-Hilbert action on piecewise linear geometries. 4. Using Monte Carlo simulation they will insist on a fixed four-volume and I am still quoting word by word from the said paper.
As a result the authors say that they obtained or observed again in their own words: “The emergence of a four-dimension universe.”
Now let us look at a decisive point in the analysis leading to this result. In the Lagrangian involved in the action given by equation no 4 of their paper, the authors introduced a Lagrangian multiplier. Now anyone versed in the calculus of variations knows exactly the meaning of this Lagrangian multiplier. It is imposing an additional force to make the equation of motion respect an auxiliary condition. In the analysis of Ambjorn, Jurkiewicz and Loll this auxiliary condition is that the total volume should be a four-dimensional volume. I don’t like sarcasm in the context of a scientific discussion and I definitely do not mean to be sarcastic when I genuinely ask: If you take four-dimensional simplices and an Einstein-Hilbert action with an auxiliary condition enforcing four-dimensional volume via a Lagrangian multiplier, is it the least surprising that you should retrieve a four-dimensional manifold for spacetime? I don’t want to say that the authors
indoctrinated the result as some have remarked on various blogs worldwide but I would say the authors required four-dimensionality, did put it by hand and logically found it at the end. Ergo there is no question that the de Sitter Universe was born out of very simple or primitive assumption and giving a genuinely four-dimensional spacetime as the authors state at the end of the first column of the second page of their work.
I did not read the work of Mohamed El Naschie with sufficient depth to comment on it and on its relation to the work of Ambjorn et al. However, it seems to me that El Naschie is working with the simplest yet most complex structure known in geometry and topology. These are the elementary triadic but random Cantor sets. Somehow then he arrived at a topological dimension of 4 and a Hausdorff dimension equal to 4 + 0.23606. If his derivation is correct then this would be deriving the dimensionality of spacetime from elementary first principles.
Having said that I am of the definite opinion that the work of Ambjorn and Loll marks the beginning of a very important phase on the road to discovering the correct theory for quantum gravity and this conclusion will remain valid whether or not they have studied the literature with sufficient meticulousness.
Could we at least for a moment leave the question of who discovered Cantorian-fractal spacetime first and dwell a little more on the scientific content of the theory? For such a purpose the article in Scientific American is not ideally suited. It is the version published in Physical Review Letter which gives more scientific information on the subject. The article is called Planckian Birth of a Quantum de Sitter Universe, Physical Review Letters, PRL 100, 091304(2008). Already the introduction gives us an idea about the importance of the work and leaves very little space for misunderstanding what the authors see their work is all about. So let me quote the opening lines: “To show that the physical spacetime surrounding us can be derived from some fundamental quantum dynamical principle is one of the holy grails of theoretical physics.” Subsequently, the authors stress that in their work: ”The challenge is to obtain this from a
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisbackground-independent formulation where no background spacetime is put in by hand.” In the next section titled Macroscopic de Sitter universe the authors set the stage for what they are intending to do. They will: 1. Use four-dimensional simplices. 2. Will respect global foliation in discrete proper time. 3. Will use Einstein-Hilbert action on piecewise linear geometries. 4. Using Monte Carlo simulation they will insist on a fixed four-volume and I am still quoting word by word from the said paper.
As a result the authors say that they obtained or observed again in their own words: “The emergence of a four-dimension universe.”
Now let us look at a decisive point in the analysis leading to this result. In the Lagrangian involved in the action given by equation no 4 of their paper, the authors introduced a Lagrangian multiplier. Now anyone versed in the calculus of variations knows exactly the meaning of this Lagrangian multiplier. It is imposing an additional force to make the equation of motion respect an auxiliary condition. In the analysis of Ambjorn, Jurkiewicz and Loll this auxiliary condition is that the total volume should be a four-dimensional volume. I don’t like sarcasm in the context of a scientific discussion and I definitely do not mean to be sarcastic when I genuinely ask: If you take four-dimensional simplices and an Einstein-Hilbert action with an auxiliary condition enforcing four-dimensional volume via a Lagrangian multiplier, is it the least surprising that you should retrieve a four-dimensional manifold for spacetime? I don’t want to say that the authors
indoctrinated the result as some have remarked on various blogs worldwide but I would say the authors required four-dimensionality, did put it by hand and logically found it at the end. Ergo there is no question that the de Sitter Universe was born out of very simple or primitive assumption and giving a genuinely four-dimensional spacetime as the authors state at the end of the first column of the second page of their work.
I did not read the work of Mohamed El Naschie with sufficient depth to comment on it and on its relation to the work of Ambjorn et al. However, it seems to me that El Naschie is working with the simplest yet most complex structure known in geometry and topology. These are the elementary triadic but random Cantor sets. Somehow then he arrived at a topological dimension of 4 and a Hausdorff dimension equal to 4 + 0.23606. If his derivation is correct then this would be deriving the dimensionality of spacetime from elementary first principles.
Having said that I am of the definite opinion that the work of Ambjorn and Loll marks the beginning of a very important phase on the road to discovering the correct theory for quantum gravity and this conclusion will remain valid whether or not they have studied the literature with sufficient meticulousness.
Dear John Tucker,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRegarding your analysis of the paper Planckian Birth of Quantum de Sitter Universe PRL 100, 091304 (2008).
You state: "Having said that I am of the definite opinion that the work of Ambjorn and Loll marks the beginning of a very important phase on the road to discovering the correct theory for quantum gravity and this conclusion will remain valid whether or not they have studied the literature with sufficient meticulousness"
I have to respectfully disagree. In addition to relying on a circular argument, the approach is built on many objectionable premises. It claims that causal dynamical triangulation enables a consistent regularization of quantum gravity. A quantum universe emerging from a non-perturbative sum over geometries is alleged to recover with high accuracy a four-dimensional de Sitter space-time .
However,
1) Quantitative models of space-time near the Planck scale, regardless of how intriguing and attractive they might be, are non-testable. One does not know if Quantum Field Theory (QFT) survives past the Cohen-Kaplan threshold of about 100 TeV, let alone what happens in close proximity to the Planck scale. The proposition that the linear size of the quantum universe is between 17 and 28 Planck lengths cannot be put to test.
2) Path Integral formalism and the Sum-over-Histories technique cease to be applicable in the deep TeV sector or beyond due to the likely onset of non-local interactions and chaotic dynamics of strongly coupled theories.
3) Appealing to cosmological models of space-time (such as the de Sitter model) to formulate or interpret dynamics near the Planck scale is an ad-hoc ansatz. There is simply no empirical evidence that supports linking the four dimensional manifold of General Relativity with physics on or below the sub-nuclear scale. Likewise, there is no empirical evidence that the behavior of Newtons constant near the Planck scale can be extrapolated from its properties in classical gravity.
Sincerely,
Ervin Goldfain
Dear Dr. Goldfain..I agree to a certain extent with what you are saying. Let me say first that John Tuckers remarks are very polite but they are acidly formulated. He said he is not making fun of Ambjorn and his colleagues but he made them look ridiculous regardless of what he said politely at the end. Of course he is right. Howe could you introduce an auxiliary condition and a Lagrangian multiplier forcing the equation of motion to admit four dimensionality then jump into the air shouting hurrah, hurrah I found four dimensionality.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhen Tucker said that their paper marks the beginning of an important development I guess he only wanted to say in a subtle way that a centre of excellence is acknowledging the work done by whom they regarded in the past as renegades. I have read a lot of your work and I know that you are very close to El Naschie and his group but I dont agree with your over emphasis on empirical evidence.
Let me recall what Richard Feynman wrote to Garnet Ord in a letter published by Mohamed El Naschie: Feynman said do not disregard a beautiful theory just because it contravenes some experimental results. In the same time you should not take a theory seriously which flies in the face of well established experimental fact. According to Feynman there is a thin path to tread between the two extremes. Feynman judged string theory too harshly in my opinion. When you have a new theory in embryonic form you have to treat it very delicately and nourish it until it matures exactly as you do with a new born baby. You have to be tolerant and accept many drawbacks for the time being. I guess Tucker was giving the theory of Ambjorn and Loll the benefit of the doubt on certain aspects.
However and in full agreement with the sentiments expressed by so many people on so many blogs on this paper, there is an element reminiscent of American television commercials& too much fan fare and by comparison, much less substance. In my opinion it was intended not so much by the Authors but presumably more by the Institutions where they are working. How should I put it, shall I call it funding or simply money. There is too much undue pressure in my opinion put on scientists worldwide to get funding and money for their universities and institutions. I do not know what the solution is but I know for sure that this is the trouble with theoretical physics at least.
Dear S. Logan,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThank you for your thoughtful reply and clarifications.
Regarding the argument made in my previous posting: it is important to recall that physics is an experimental science. Unforunately, too many researchers in theoretical physics tend to forget this simple fact. At the end of the day, conceptual models find acceptance only if fully supported by objective evidence. We simply cannot take on faith the validity of any model, regardless of how aesthetically appealing it might be. Based on what is known now, physics on the Planck scale is not directly (or indirectly) testable and, as such, it is to be taken with a healthy dose of skepticism.
Yours,
Ervin Goldfain
I must admit that I never imagined that Mohamed El Naschie’s thinking about the dimensionality and fractality of quantum space was that advanced. In a paper published in 1998 he not only tackled the theoretical problem but went as far as making specific proposals for experimentally testing the Hausdorff dimension of the path of a quantum particle. He proposed some original ideas based on a technology transfer of methods developed in the realm of nonlinear dynamics to high energy physics such as a reconstruction of a quantum phase space using Ruelle-Packard and Takens theorem. Mohamed El Naschie is simply ahead of his time and that may indeed be a problem. The paper I mention is entitled The fractal dimension of spacetime – Remarks on theoretical derivation and experimental verification. See Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, Vol. 9, No. 7, pp. 1211-1217 or Elsevier’s Science Direct. This particular volume was Edited by the three principle discoverers of spacetime, G. Ord, L. Nottale and M.S. El Naschie and was entitled The impact of nonlinear dynamics and fractals on quantum physics and relativity. Such an impact was predicted some 20 years ago in a Nobel conference in Stockholm and it is over due that this subject is given prime time. I am told that the British Inst. of Physics is thinking about doing precisely that.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI am inclined to agree with the balanced comments of John Tucker. I am still however deeply disturbed about what happened and that the Authors of the Scientific American article have not made the slightest move to correct the situation. With regard to Prof. El Naschies derivation of the Hausdorff dimension of Cantorian-fractal spacetime, this is quite simple and purely topological and geometrical. For that one needs two equations. The first gives the effective total topological dimension and the second gives the effective total Hausdorff dimension. Requiring that both dimensions should be equal one finds the required parameter fixing both dimensions to be equal to the Golden Mean and that the corresponding dimension is 4 plus phi to the power of 3 which then amounts to 4.23606799. Let us derive the first equation. Taking all integer n dimensions from n equal zero to n equal infinity and giving each dimension a weight equal d to the power of n and adding all these weighted dimensions, we find a total dimension of one plus d all divided by 1 minus d. This is the effective total topological dimension as a function of the parameter d. Next we derive the second equation for the effective total Hausdorff dimension. Since El Naschies Cantorian spacetime is made of infinitely many but hierarchal elementary Cantor sets, we take the Hausdorff dimension of each one to be a certain value to the power of n and add all these Hausdorff dimensions from zero to infinity. To find the magnitude of this dimension the total sum which is the reciprocal value of one minus the unknown Hausdorff dimension must be divided once more by this particular Hausdorff dimension. Now we have two equations and we set them equal. It is not possible to solve this equation unless we have only one unknown, therefore we set d equal to our unknown Hausdorff dimension. As a result we find a simple quadratic equation in d and the only positive solution is d equal 0.618033989 which is the Golden Mean. Inserting back in any of the two equations one finds that the total effective topological and Hausdorff dimensions of our Cantorian fractal space is 4 plus the Golden Mean to the third power.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThat is actually all. A very nice property of the preceding value is reflected in its continued fraction representation. It looks like a four dimensional space surrounding a second smaller four dimensional space and so on indefinitely like a surrealistic Russian doll. If we do not open the first doll, then we have only 4 as a dimension and that is the topological dimension of our classical spacetime.
El Naschie has given many different ways of obtaining the preceAding result and connected his work with non-commutative geometry as well as von Neumanns continuous geometry. I related his work to knot theory as applied to wormholes in a recent paper which may be found on Elseviers Science Direct website. The title of the paper is Knot wormholes and the dimensional invariant of exceptional Lie groups and Stein space hierarchies.
Ayman Elokaby
Dept. of Physics
University of Alexandria.
It is not only this paper in Scientific American. J. Ambjorn, J. Jurkiewicz and R. Loll advertised their derivation of spacetime dimensions on the blog Physical Review Focus. It seems to me to be a planned campaign to raise research funds. The reviewer, a free-lance science writer Adrian Cho did not spare his compliments, marveling at the unique discovery comparable only to Picasso’s cubistic painting. Imagine this coming from a leading centre of excellence with a Nobel laureate in physics as a patron. Who knows, maybe the subject is Nobel prize worthy and therefore above our little heads.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisP.Lang
It is surreal: to derive the dimensionality of classical, relativistic and quantum spacetime Mohamed El Naschie used J.H. Conways surreal numbers. In one of the most enchanting papers ever written on the subject, El Naschie started from a sigma field and proved that the expectation value of the dimensions are 4.236067977 for quantum spacetime, exactly 4 for relativistic spacetime and 3 plus 1 for classical spacetime. The paper is part of a volume edited by M.S. El Naschie, L. Nottale, S. Al Athel and G. Ord. It can be found on Elseviers Science Direct web site under the title On numbers, probability and dimension. It is published in Chaos, Solitons & Fractals as long ago as 1996. I endorse the comments of W. Hansen that El Naschie is ahead of his time but I do not think it is a problem. It is wonderful to have people ahead of their time.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisChaired by Stig Lundqvist, the 1984 Nobel Conference held in the Swedish Royal Academy of Science in Stockholm to discuss past achievements and future development of deterministic chaos and fractal geometry was by any standard a truly extraordinary event.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisKadanoff, Haken, Wolfram, Procaccia, Frish, Ruelle, Arecchi, Gallub, Hohenberg, Bak, Bohr, Scalapino, Langer and Huberman are just a few of the big names who were present at the summary session. As recounted by Mohamed El Naschie and documented in Vol. T9 of the 1985 Physica Scripta, towards the end P. Hohenberg of AT&T Bell Laboratories, USA said that it is a time to list the bets and conjectures about the future of nonlinear dynamics, i.e. about chaos, fractals and complexity theory which were suggested by the participants in answer to a questionnaire which was distributed. They listed ten points. Nine of these points were pertinent to the field and completely expected. It is point ten which may have come as unexpected. This point states that:
Nonlinear dynamics and chaos will invade the foundations of quantum
mechanics and elementary particle physics.
This may have been a self fulfilling prophecy as can be seen for instance from Elsevier’s Science Direct website with a large number of papers published on this subject. We all know the effect of the word Nobel on science in general and physics in particular, all apart from politics. There is a great deal of harm which the Nobel prize has caused but I for one see the good far outweighing the harm. I think the mere mention of a Nobel conference endorsing nonlinear dynamics as a mover and shaker of the very foundations of elementary particle physics must have electrified researches like Mohamed El Naschie to work feverishly on the subject. I hope I am not doing him or his colleagues an injustice by saying that as I find nothing wrong in being motivated by the highest honor which the scientific community can bestow.
It is in this positive light that I see the work of the Utrecht group, Niels Bohr Institute and Spinoza Institute. It would be wonderful indeed if an exceptional scientist like Nobel laureate G. ‘tHooft could put his substantial weight behind a nonlinear dynamical fractal approach to quantum gravity. This effort must start by first awarding a Nobel prize in nonlinear dynamics proper. There are a few names in this area all worth of the highest honor.
Dear J. P. H.,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI agree with you that nonlinear dynamics, chaos and complexity deserve to qualify as an integral part of contemporary research in particle physics and Quantum Field Theory. But this is far from being the case.The reality is that (with few exceptions) major research programs in particle physics such as SUSY, String / M -theory, Loop Quantum Gravity, alternative models for electro-weak symmetry breaking, Lepto- and Baryogenesis (and so on) ignore almost completely the rich and unexpected consequences of nonlinear dynamics and emergent behavior.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEven the Londoner Daily Mail on Sunday is talking about Professor Otto E. Roessler. The internationally well known German pioneer of Nonlinear Dynamics and Chaos is the center of one of the largest controversary of modern times connected to CERN. Prof. Roessler has been warning from producing miniblackholes in the new facility in CERN- Geneva, Switzerland.
But Roessler is also one of the promoters of Fractal spacetime. I found out about that from a book edited by the wellknown Austrian theoretical physicist Karl Svozil, dated 1999. The book is called Complexities and is dedicated to Professor Otto Roessler. The last paper is by Professor Mohamed El Naschie. In this paper El Naschie derives the four dimensionality of Cantorian fractal spacetime using the sporadic 196884-dimensional groups. This is the so called monster group. It is enormously interesting. In fact Karl Svozil has been working with the famous Austrian experimental physicist Anton Zeilinger on the problem of spacetime dimensionality since a long time. I think the book is reproduced in a special issue of Chaos, Solitons and Fractals Vol 10, No 6. The content could be found on this amazing Elsevier Science direct.
A. Schaber
A remark on the cosmic microwave background radiation and the Hausdorff dimension of spacetime is the captivating title of a paper by a Cambridge professor in the Dept. of Applied Math. & Theoretical Physics in the UK. The work has a real spark of genius connecting in an exact analysis the COBE measurement of the cosmic microwave background radiation to a Hausdorff dimension of 4.23606. You could not beat such a synthesis of accurate measurement and fundamental theory. The 1999 paper is available on Elsevier’s Science Direct in a nonlinear dynamics and chaos journal called Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, Vol. 10, No. 11, p. 1807-1811. The author Mohamed El Naschie also gives a nice formula for the inverse fine structure constant due to the Indian meteorologist Mary Selvam.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisS. Lackshmin
The more I learn about the vast literature produced by the school of Cantorian spacetime and compare that with the claims made by Ambjorn and Loll, the more I sink in a mood of total incomprehension for their motives. Take for instance Mohamed El Naschies papers published in the special issue of CS&F, Edited by the Swiss-Japanese Prof. of mathematical Physics, M. Nagasawa from the University of Zurich Relativity, Locality and Random Fractals in Quantum Theory. His paper entitled The Bethe Lattice and the Dimension of Micro Spacetime gives a vector bundle based derivation, the simplicity of which I have never seen before. The second paper called Remarks on Super Strings, CS&F, Vol. 8, No. 11, pp. 1873-1997 covers almost all aspects connecting anomalous diffusion and Cantorian spacetime dimensionality. How could anyone overlook all that?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisProf. Otto Rossler, the father of the Rossler attractor, hyper chaos and indo-physics indicated in a recent interview (Professor R�ssler Takes On The LHC | Scientific Blogging) that the only hope for a definite answer regarding the danger of annihilating the earth via CERN mini black hole experiment is Mohamed El Naschies E-infinity Cantorian-fractal spacetime theory.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI ask you all what could be a higher stake than the fate of the entire universe? Even if Rossler is wrong, why not wait just a little bit until we are completely sure. Never the less we have to be reasonable about reasons. That is why I suggest a world committee made up of John Eilese for CERN, Gerard tHooft for the conservative elite and Mohamed El Naschie for the avant-garde theoretical physics. The committee should be chaired by Prof. Sir Roger Penrose being the worlds foremost expert on gravity and one of the originators of black hole research as well as the worlds undisputed most intellectual scientist. The committee should be given two months to submit a final and binding report. I think the subject is worth it for after all, what if Prof. Rossler who is officially certified a genius and humanist is right? We cannot ignore Otto Rossler.
D. Shemanski
In the time between the 3rd and 8th November 2007 I left England to attend an international conference on nonlinear dynamics and nanotechnology in Amman, Jordan. The first lecture was given by Prof. Mohamed El Naschie. This lecture was partially related to the subject matter of the present discussion regarding the paper of Ambjorn and Loll. It was a day later that Prof. El Naschie was honored in the Schuman Inst. for his scientific efforts and achievements. He was given the Schuman Shield of Merit, one of the most sought after scientific prizes in the Arab world. The reason for bestowing this honor on him was two fold. First he is generally acknowledged as the man who introduced the Arab world to the nanotechnology age. Second he has developed a quantum gravity theory which starts from a fractal spacetime model based on Cantor sets. Prof. El Naschie is known to be the originator of this theory for the last 15 years and by looking at Elseviers Science Direct web site, one can immediately see the impact of his theory on the field of high energy physics. There are virtually dozens of scientists all over the world working in this field and the large number of published papers is impossible to overlook.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNatsheh
Dept. of Electrical Eng.
Loughborough University
In the time between the 3rd and 8th November 2007 I left England to attend an international conference on nonlinear dynamics and nanotechnology in Amman, Jordan. The first lecture was given by Prof. Mohamed El Naschie. This lecture was partially related to the subject matter of the present discussion regarding the paper of Ambjorn and Loll. It was a day later that Prof. El Naschie was honored in the Schuman Inst. for his scientific efforts and achievements. He was given the Schuman Shield of Merit, one of the most sought after scientific prizes in the Arab world. The reason for bestowing this honor on him was two fold. First he is generally acknowledged as the man who introduced the Arab world to the nanotechnology age. Second he has developed a quantum gravity theory which starts from a fractal spacetime model based on Cantor sets. Prof. El Naschie is known to be the originator of this theory for the last 15 years and by looking at Elsevier’s Science Direct web site, one can immediately see the impact of his theory on the field of high energy physics. There are virtually dozens of scientists all over the world working in this field and the large number of published papers is impossible to overlook.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNatsheh
Dept. of Electrical Eng.
Loughborough University
I could only shake my head when I heard what Prof. Steven Hawking had to say about the large Hadron collider to assure the public that the earth will not be swallowed by a mini black hole. It is alright to assure the public but not on the account of scientific truthfulness. Hawking said (and this was quoted in the media for instance The Daily Telegraph, Wed. 10th Sept. on the first page) that the energy released in the collision of two particles in the reactor is comparable to two mosquitoes colliding. Even when we grant what is not true, that there are only two particles colliding in the reactor, then we can conclude from this statement that Prof. Hawking doesnt know anything about the butterfly effect. Prof. Edward Lorenz coined this expression to illustrate the unbelievable effect with can exist in a nonlinear chaotic system, for instance the weather. Imagine a butterfly fluttering its wings in California could in part be the cause of a hurricane in Florida. I think that part of the over confidence of certain high energy scientists in their experiments is due to their general ignorance of nonlinear dynamics and deterministic chaos. I can only recommend to all of them to join a course on nonlinear dynamics which is now offered by most Universities in the West. Alternatively they could ask experts on the subject such as Richard Feigenbaum or in this particular case Prof. Otto Rossler. On the other hand it may be too late.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI could accept it as credible that the team from Spinoza Institute did not know about El Naschies work if it were published in some little unknown journal. However this is not the case. I found out that M.S. El Naschies work is published on Elseviers Science Direct web site. There are hundreds of papers published on fractal spacetime, Cantorian spacetime and E-infinity theory. Elsevier is also not any publisher. It is the largest publishing company in the world. Elsevier has more than 5000 journals. All of them top journals. El Naschies work is published in Chaos, Solitons & Fractals. This journal has the highest impact factor of all nonlinear dynamics journals. It is more than 3.5. Most other journals as well as mathematical journals never exceed the 2.0 margin. Physica D is only 1.7. Chaos, published by the American Inst. of Physics which is probably the largest institute of physics in the world, is only 2.188. The European Journal of Physics is 2.0. Journal of Nonlinear Science is only 1.26. In fact the over one hundred years old Physics Letters has an impact factor of 7.0 which is not that much larger than Chaos, Solitons & Fractals when you consider that Nature for instance has an impact factor of 36. So all in all I cannot accept that Prof. Ambjorn and Prof. Loll could have overlooked the hundreds of papers published on Elseviers Science Direct which is probably by now the largest and the most used scientific site on the world wide web.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn the Journal of Physics of the British Inst. of Physics, Conference Series (http://www.iop.org/EJ/toc/1742-6596/96/1)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisthere is a nice review of the work done using E-infinity theory across many scientific fields. Reading this article I came across the name of M.S. El Naschie as well as his Cantor set theory many times. The article deals with human genome, exceptional Lie groups, Feigenbaum Golden Mean renormalization groups, Rouelle and Takeus turbulence, the theoretical prediction of the COBE curve using El Naschies theory and so forth. It would be interesting to hear the opinion of Dr. Renate Loll and Dr. Jan Ambjorn on this paper.
It is surreal that neither the Authors of this article nor the Centre of excellence in Utrecht nor in fact Scientific American have given any explanation or answer to all what is written on this site. I looked in the latest issue of Scientific American and did not find a single letter or comment on this article. It is probably the modern gentlemanly way of confiscating scientific ideas. In their lofty tower who cares about those down there. To borrow memorable words from Clint Eastwood, there are two types of men, those who dig and those who shoot. Is it possible that Scientific American is endorsing a similar philosophy&..meaning there are two types of scientists, those who do the work and those who publish it. For the sake of science, I hope I am wrong but quite honestly, I do not believe I am wrong.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisA paper which just appeared on Elsevier’s Science Direct by A. Elokaby demonstrates a remarkable connection between super strings and Brane theory in 11 dimensions and the Fibonacci. The work seems to be related to crystallography. In particular the Fibonacci growth law is pointed out as the origin of internal symmetry. The work of Nobel laureate Herbert A. Hauptman and Mohamed El Naschie is referred to in connection with the Pascal triangle. In other words integers following the Pascal Fibonacci are the building blocks of matter and spacetime. We have therefore two opposed and yet complimentary view points. The first is that of George Cantor and the fractal sets of El Naschie, Ambjorn and Loll. The second is that of Kroniker and the integer Fibonacci of Hauptman and Elokaby. Interestingly at infinity the limit of the Fibonacci ratios is an irrational number which is the golden mean.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI have just noticed something regarding causal triangulation as presented in this paper by Jurkiewics, Loll and Ambjorn and El Naschie’s approach using what I may describe as ‘tHooft-Anti de Sitter-Klein modular space. The point is related to Regge calculus. This is a method well known in engineering science. It is called finite element. This is a physical method to calculate stresses in say an aircraft fuselage. It is essentially a realization of the finite difference method. Finite difference is normally used to solve a differential equation numerically. But the differential equation for an aircraft fuselage is quite complex to say the least. In the finite element method the body of the aircraft is cut down to small triangles which are fitted together. This is the finite element method. We do something similar in Regge calculus. But the differential equation to be solved corresponds essentially to Einstein’s equation of general
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisrelativity and in the present paper, the equation of quantum gravity which connects relativity and quantum theory. Roger Penrose tiling could also be viewed as a finite element with golden mean proportionality. Tiling is a fundamental problem in mathematics and physics. A few years ago an American mathematician published a paper in Mathematical Intelligence which is published by Springer in which he showed how to tile space using knots. In this spirit we could see Klein’s modular curve as a tiling of an Anti de Sitter space. Because of the way El Naschie handles this problem, he can find the total number of tiles required analytically without using a computer. Formally the number of tiles required is of course infinite but when using statistical weights, then the total sum is finite. Using the same statistical distribution as that of Max Planck black body radiation, the total sum is almost 339 triangles. Of these triangles 336 could be
regarded as integers, sharply drawn triangles. The rest which have statistical weight of almost 3 is the fractal part covering space to infinity which has now become finite. My guess is the computer program of this paper is doing numerically what El Naschie’s theory was doing analytically, albeit in an explicit number theoretical way. The essence of what I am saying here could be seen in detail from three recent papers which can be found on Elsevier’s Science Direct. The first is a paper by Ray Munroe ‘Symplectic tiling, hypercolour and hyperflavor E12’, the second and third are entitled ‘The crystallographic space groups and Heterotic string theory’ and ‘Derivation of the Euler characteristic and the curvature of Cantorian-fractal spacetime using Nash Euclidean embedding and the universal Menger sponge’. All are published in Chaos, Solitons & Fractals. I hope this somewhat long remark could narrow the gap between the opposing
points of view expressed on this site regarding this rather important paper.
I appreciate the comments made Sunday by James Sharpe. None the less, saying that we have 336 sharp triangles and 3 more to account for fuzzy or fractal effect could be misleading. The fact is that we have 336 symmetries and the additional 3 are to account for average symmetry. We could do as El Naschie and call the 3 plus 336 effective degrees of freedom, but we cannot call it number of triangles. We could call them weighted number of triangles but then all dimensions are weighted, the 336 and the additional 3. It would seem to me that El Naschie was translating the work of Connes on non-commutative geometry to a language accessible to theoretical physicists. Connes calls fractals foliation and he works with average Euler characteristics. Dr. R. Loll does similar things in her more formal publication. One could say this is uncalled for sophisticated terminology or mathematical exactness. From a pragmatic point of view however, El Naschie, Connes and Loll are talking about the same things separated by different jargon.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisA daughter of a biotechnologist, I was introduced to Scientific American at a young age, every time my father brought a new issue home. The topics were always fascinating, informing readers and inviting them to explore new horizons, to constantly try to piece together the puzzle this great universe is, through the language of science. I have always considered it a reliable, respectable & professional publication, but most importantly, it was always a credible source on information. Shall we now as readers begin to question the credibility of Scientific American? How is it then, that this entire piece made no reference of any kind to the work of Prof. Mohamed Elnaschie, and his efforts to complete quantum field theory and unify strings and loop quantum gravity in a single mathematical structure (E-8 to E-infinity) ? I've been reading more and more about scientific plagiarism, but it is appalling to me that Scientific American would be unaware of Prof. Elnaschie's efforts, or that it would willingly ignore it, despite the volumes of books and conferences documenting them. Knowldege is indeed constantly evolving, and the fruit of the contributions of countless names and scientists, but it our duty at least to document it correctly and give credit where credit is due- otherwise we are as guilty as those claiming credit for the work of others. Credibility is a fragile asset, that once lost and shattered, can hardly be recovered. I hope the Editor takes this into consideration, and does not deprive us of a long time symbol of objective reliable scientific reporting. I am actually looking forward to your next issue, as I hope it will shed some light on this strange matter, and reassure us that Scientific American is a reliable source indeed, that values its credibility and integrity above anyhting else.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAll is well that ends well. This is my feeling after reading an excellent paper by a Slovenian mathematical physicist L. Marek-Crnjac. In this paper the author did not only give an original and brand new theory to replace Feynman’s summing over paths by summing over exceptional Lie groups. More importantly the end result of the paper validates both theories of Ambjorn’s and El Naschie’s. Said differently instead of confrontation, we have here an exemplary cooperation. I am persuaded that although both theories are based on the same things, they differ enormously in methodology. What could be better in such circumstances than getting precisely the same results. I am reminded here by the work of Feynman, Schwinger and Tomonaga. At the beginning they seemed extremely different and they got together the Nobel Prize in Physics. But it was Dyson who showed that they are only three different formulas of the same theory. This is the service rendered by
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisthe excellent paper of Marek-Crnjac. I hope I can explain it to you correctly without using too much mathematics. Ambjorn, Jurkiewicz and R. Loll calculated the dimension of an ante de Sitter universe and found that it is 4.02. One could be led to think that it should have been exactly four and the 0.2 is a computer artifact due to natural computer rounding error. But then here comes the miraculous derivation of Crnjac. He starts from the exact number of massless states given by El Naschie to be 8872.135956. Then using El Naschie’s theory and replaces differentiation by Weyl scaling and multiplies this value by the scaling exponent which is 0.618033989 to the power of 16 and obtains exactly 4.019999 which is practically the exact result of the article in Scientific American by the authors. This is tantalizing and shows that Ambjorn’s result is exact and it is not 4 but 4.02. Furthermore, it shows that El Naschie’s theory is truly exact and
meaningful as he has always maintained for the last decade. What a nice conclusion for a controversy which was to the larger part highly civilized but sometime temper was rising. Such is the benefit of discussing things using the scientific method and detached cool thinking. Now we don’t have only one good new theory but two and I hope you see that I am justified in my optimism.
D
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDear Zina,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhy should the West respect us more than we respect ourselves? True, it is a gross injustice which Scientific American may have intentionally or unintentionally inflicted on our beloved Dr. Mohamed Al Nashaie or El Naschie as it is written in the West. But I will be proud beyond belief if our own Arabic media, whether it is a journal or a magazine, could be only one percent as honest as the media in the West. With respect to Prof. Mohamed, let me give you one example: this man has campaigned for nine years in Egypt for nanotechnology and no one there has ever heard the word before. Now if you have access to the semi official newspaper Al Ahram, you will read about nanotechnology – see 24 October 2008 issue, page 27 where they are talking about nanotechnology and the future of industry in Egypt. They only mention the name of Prof. Mohamed in passing and they focus on the Minister and a very rich businessman and the Parliament speaker and show their
pictures. The whole article is written in such a way so as to give Prof. Mohamed the least credit and give all those who never understood anything about nanotechnology nor will ever do anything in reality, the role of pioneers and originators of nano in Egypt. Mohamed El Naschie was acknowledged in the West for a long time. They gave him a job, money and opportunity – and what did we give him in Egypt? No envy – nothing. With all due respect to your opinion and good intention, you and America don’t know anything about us here in Egypt and I would rather have the imperfect system in the West and a second rate treatment than the perfect system here in the East with our Journalism that doesn’t deserve even this name. When we learn to respect ourselves and our scientists, then the West will learn to respect us as well.
I
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI have read a very nice paper proving that El Naschie’s theory and Renate Loll’s and Ambjorn’s theories are equivalent. The paper is called: A Feynman path integral-like method for deriving the four dimensionality of spacetime from first principles. It is published in Chaos, Solitons & Fractals and it is found online at: www.sciencedirect.com.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI would like to draw the attention to a recent paper by Prof. Ji-Huan He. In this paper Nonlinear science as a fluctuating research frontier Prof. He published a list of the impact factors of all important nonlinear journals. Chaos, Solitons & Fractals is at the very top with an impact factor of 3.025 and all other journals are below that. The International Journal of Nonlinear Sciences and Numerical Simulation is the only Journal that has a higher impact factor. This was the situation a year ago. In addition, Chaos, Solitons & Fractals published more papers per volume and more volumes per year than the corresponding Elsevier or World Scientific Journals. I am mentioning all these tedious statistics to show that the authors of the Scientific American article could not claim that they knew nothing about our work and the work of Prof. El Naschie and his student which was published in Chaos, Solitons & Fractal many years before anybody else who may be working today on fractal spacetime.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI would like to draw the attention to a recent paper by Prof. Ji-Huan He. In this paper – Nonlinear science as a fluctuating research frontier – Prof. He published a list of the impact factors of all important nonlinear journals. Chaos, Solitons & Fractals is at the very top with an impact factor of 3.025 and all other journals are below that. The International Journal of Nonlinear Sciences and Numerical Simulation is the only Journal that has a higher impact factor. This was the situation a year ago. In addition, Chaos, Solitons & Fractals published more papers per volume and more volumes per year than the corresponding Elsevier or World Scientific Journals. I am mentioning all these tedious statistics to show that the authors of the Scientific American article could not claim that they knew nothing about our work and the work of Prof. El Naschie and his student which was published in Chaos, Solitons & Fractal many years before anybody else who may be working today on fractal spacetime.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI think the work of our Chinese group on fractal and Cantorian spacetime far exceed in its scope anything which was published in the past. In fact the inventor of E-Infinity theory, the Egyptian Prof. Mohamed El Naschie never used the theory in biology. The Chinese chapter, by contrast, has been working in high energy physics, biology, nanotechnology and environmental sciences.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe work of El Naschie is not only ingenious but extremely elegant. To prove my point, I refer anybody of interest in physics to a paper by A. Elokaby titled Confinement and asymptotic freedom seen with a golden eye published in Chaos, Solitons & Fractals (www.sciencedirect.com).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe work of El Naschie is not only ingenious but extremely elegant. To prove my point, I refer anybody of interest in physics to a paper by A. Elokaby titled Confinement and asymptotic freedom seen with a golden eye published in Chaos, Solitons & Fractals (www.sciencedirect.com).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWe have been all praying in China that Prof. El Naschie get this year the Nobel Prize in Physics. He was indeed yet again very close. This year the Nobel Prize went for symmetry and symmetry breaking. Of course Prof. Nambu more than deserves the Nobel Prize. He almost singlehandedly invented the subject. But no one has put symmetry in the center of his work like Prof. Mohamed El Naschie. He used E8 to predict not only the number of elementary particles but also their masses as well as the coupling constants of nature. He made unbelievable predictions which are supported by experiment. For instance, he showed that the sum of all dimensions of all exceptional Lie groups is 548. Subsequently, he boldly predicted that the mass of the eta particle must be 548 gauged in MEV which is the correct experimental value. I know of no other work which made these predictions using exclusively symmetry arguments and Lie symmetry groups. Presently, we have a large research group in China on this subject.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI am sorry but the value of 4.02 calculated by Ambjorn, Loll and Jurkiewicz could not be described as a Hausdorff dimension or a topological dimension of spacetime. El Naschie showed that the Hausdorff dimension is 4.236067977 which is correct. He also showed that the exact topological dimension is exactly 4. Initially this seems like a puzzle because how could the 4.02 be drivable from El Naschie’s theory in full agreement with Ambjorn and his colleagues and yet be neither topological nor Hausdforff dimension. The resolution of this puzzle is that 4.02 is a triple average dimension for spacetime closely related to the emergence of spacetime starting from the Planck threshold. This is too complex to explain here but I am writing a paper on this subject and will submit it to Chaos, Solitons & Fractals or Classical & Quantum Gravity for publication.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSome of my colleagues asked me how can Prof. Mohamed El Naschie convert a mere symmetry group dimension to a particle mass gauged in particular electron volt unit system. The answer is very simple. In fact conventional. Mass in quantum physics is quite different from classical physics. A mass in quantum physics is a kind of charge like electric charge or magnetic charge. It is easier to understand it that way. One could say that mass in classical physics is impossible to understand. In classical physics it is a circulatory argument, namely mass comes from force and force is defined using mass. Even Newtons explanation of what mass is is no explanation at all. Therefore if we accept that Einstein converted empty spacetime into gravity, that means force which means mass, then why shouldn’t we accept Mohamed El Naschie converting the most important invariant of space, namely its dimension into mass particularly when mass is nothing else but charge. Maybe I am putting it in a little bit provocative way but Mohamed El Naschie’s explanation for mass is not at all far off from what Nobel laureate Frank Wilczek used to explain mass. In fact it is completely normal to work with unitless mass in quantum field theory. There is also something called dimensional transportation which is a well established procedure in quantum field theory. Then people start asking is there anything very special about the electron volt system. The answer is again simple. Of course it is very special and it is extremely disadvantageous to change this unit system to any other one because it is using the natural charge of the electron. Anything else is artificial. Then people ask do you believe in miracles or super natural acts of creation. The answer is once more yes. But this is not super natural but evolution which created human beings out of dead elementary particles. It is time. Given enough time, billion of years, chance and necessity created life. By comparison it is very easy what happened in theoretical physics. Hundreds of years of research give us the chance to have the good sense of inventing or should I say using the electron volt units. That way things become enormously simple and everything which is simple is natural. By understanding physics but having the sensitivity of ancient nations like China and Egypt to the music of numbers, El Naschie noticed the fundamental role of the electronic volt unit system and how to use it in conjunction with the fundamental symmetry groups of nature to deduce the mass of elementary particles. If you need to read more about that I recommend, apart from El Naschie’s work, a superb article by Novel laureate Frank Wilczek called Four big question with pretty good answers, published in a book called Fundamental Physics – Heisenberg and Beyond, Edited by Gerd W. Buschhorn and Julius Wess and dedicated to the memory of Werner Heisenberg. Published by Springer, 2004, p. 79-97.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSome of my colleagues asked me how can Prof. Mohamed El Naschie convert a mere symmetry group dimension to a particle mass gauged in particular electron volt unit system. The answer is very simple. In fact conventional. Mass in quantum physics is quite different from classical physics. A mass in quantum physics is a kind of charge like electric charge or magnetic charge. It is easier to understand it that way. One could say that mass in classical physics is impossible to understand. In classical physics it is a circulatory argument, namely mass comes from force and force is defined using mass. Even Newtons explanation of what mass is is no explanation at all. Therefore if we accept that Einstein converted empty spacetime into gravity, that means force which means mass, then why shouldn’t we accept Mohamed El Naschie converting the most important invariant of space, namely its dimension into mass particularly when mass is nothing else but charge. Maybe I am putting it in a little bit provocative way but Mohamed El Naschie’s explanation for mass is not at all far off from what Nobel laureate Frank Wilczek used to explain mass. In fact it is completely normal to work with unitless mass in quantum field theory. There is also something called dimensional transportation which is a well established procedure in quantum field theory. Then people start asking is there anything very special about the electron volt system. The answer is again simple. Of course it is very special and it is extremely disadvantageous to change this unit system to any other one because it is using the natural charge of the electron. Anything else is artificial. Then people ask do you believe in miracles or super natural acts of creation. The answer is once more yes. But this is not super natural but evolution which created human beings out of dead elementary particles. It is time. Given enough time, billion of years, chance and necessity created life. By comparison it is very easy what happened in theoretical physics. Hundreds of years of research give us the chance to have the good sense of inventing or should I say using the electron volt units. That way things become enormously simple and everything which is simple is natural. By understanding physics but having the sensitivity of ancient nations like China and Egypt to the music of numbers, El Naschie noticed the fundamental role of the electronic volt unit system and how to use it in conjunction with the fundamental symmetry groups of nature to deduce the mass of elementary particles. If you need to read more about that I recommend, apart from El Naschie’s work, a superb article by Novel laureate Frank Wilczek called Four big question with pretty good answers, published in a book called Fundamental Physics – Heisenberg and Beyond, Edited by Gerd W. Buschhorn and Julius Wess and dedicated to the memory of Werner Heisenberg. Published by Springer, 2004, p. 79-97.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisProf. El Naschie did not derive only a dimension for spacetime. His work is really monumental. Lately he has shown incredible connections between Crystallographic space groups and Heterotic string theory. Even more recently El Naschie connected his theory to cosmology by noting that his theory implies a multiply connected and wrapped around universe. The trick which he used is noting that his 17 two and three stein spaces correspond to the 17 multiply connected Euclidean spaces. This is something which Einstein never thought about and only the American topologist William Thurston had similar ideas.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisProf. El Naschie did not derive only a dimension for spacetime. His work is really monumental. Lately he has shown incredible connections between Crystallographic space groups and Heterotic string theory. Even more recently El Naschie connected his theory to cosmology by noting that his theory implies a multiply connected and wrapped around universe. The trick which he used is noting that his 17 two and three stein spaces correspond to the 17 multiply connected Euclidean spaces. This is something which Einstein never thought about and only the American topologist William Thurston had similar ideas.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisProf. El Naschie did not derive only a dimension for spacetime. His work is really monumental. Lately he has shown incredible connections between Crystallographic space groups and Heterotic string theory. Even more recently El Naschie connected his theory to cosmology by noting that his theory implies a multiply connected and wrapped around universe. The trick which he used is noting that his 17 two and three stein spaces correspond to the 17 multiply connected Euclidean spaces. This is something which Einstein never thought about and only the American topologist William Thurston had similar ideas.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSome of my colleagues asked me how can Prof. Mohamed El Naschie convert a mere symmetry group dimension to a particle mass gauged in particular electron volt unit system. The answer is very simple. In fact conventional. Mass in quantum physics is quite different from classical physics. A mass in quantum physics is a kind of charge like electric charge or magnetic charge. It is easier to understand it that way. One could say that mass in classical physics is impossible to understand. In classical physics it is a circulatory argument, namely mass comes from force and force is defined using mass. Even Newtons explanation of what mass is is no explanation at all. Therefore if we accept that Einstein converted empty spacetime into gravity, that means force which means mass, then why shouldnt we accept Mohamed El Naschie converting the most important invariant of space, namely its dimension into mass particularly when mass is nothing else but charge. Maybe I am putting it in a little bit provocative way but Mohamed El Naschies explanation for mass is not at all far off from what Nobel laureate Frank Wilczek used to explain mass. In fact it is completely normal to work with unitless mass in quantum field theory. There is also something called dimensional transportation which is a well established procedure in quantum field theory. Then people start asking is there anything very special about the electron volt system. The answer is again simple. Of course it is very special and it is extremely disadvantageous to change this unit system to any other one because it is using the natural charge of the electron. Anything else is artificial. Then people ask do you believe in miracles or super natural acts of creation. The answer is once more yes. But this is not super natural but evolution which created human beings out of dead elementary particles. It is time. Given enough time, billion of years, chance and necessity created life. By comparison it is very easy what happened in theoretical physics. Hundreds of years of research give us the chance to have the good sense of inventing or should I say using the electron volt units. That way things become enormously simple and everything which is simple is natural. By understanding physics but having the sensitivity of ancient nations like China and Egypt to the music of numbers, El Naschie noticed the fundamental role of the electronic volt unit system and how to use it in conjunction with the fundamental symmetry groups of nature to deduce the mass of elementary particles. If you need to read more about that I recommend, apart from El Naschies work, a superb article by Novel laureate Frank Wilczek called Four big question with pretty good answers, published in a book called Fundamental Physics Heisenberg and Beyond, Edited by Gerd W. Buschhorn and Julius Wess and dedicated to the memory of Werner Heisenberg. Published by Springer, 2004, p. 79-97
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat our Chinese colleagues have written about the connection between symmetry and high energy physics is correct but I would like to add a few more remarks and shed more light on the subject. Let us start with an extremely well written and lucidly explained article by Edward Witten published in Nature, 429, 3rd June 2004, p. 507-508 entitled When Symmetry Breaks Down. Prof. Witten sees the subject mathematically but explained it in laymans terms. Never the less, it still leans towards the mathematical side. He sees symmetry breaking as a change in the symmetry of the object but this is really a change of the symmetry of the equation describing the object. His explanation becomes physically obvious only in the special case when water changes to ice. Water is generally homogeneous with no crystalic structure. Ice is a most pronounced crystalic structuret Thus a total homogeneous symmetry change to a structure with a preferred direction of symmetry. This is illustrated by the Mexican hat shown in the work of Witten as well as El Naschie but then how could one physically explain the fact that when elementary particles acquire mass, then this is due to symmetry breaking. Mass has nothing to do directly with symmetry. A massless particle is homogeneous. A massive particle is also homogeneous. Consequently Edward Wittens explanation explains only the fact that the mass term in the Lagrangian breaks the symmetry of the Lagrangian. In his lectures Prof. El Naschie goes a little bit further in explaining this phenomena. I hope I can make his point of view clear in the following few lines. El Naschie makes a distinction between a equilibrium or steady state and a stable equilibrium or a stable steady state. We could regard the Mexican hat as the energy surface with only two solutions which represents an equilibrium, namely the top point of the hat or the bottom rim of the hat. Obviously when the hat is subjected to a gravitational field then a massive ball could only be at the top or the bottom. When at the top the situation is totally symmetric seen from every and each side but when at the bottom then symmetry is broken and there are infinite amounts of points along the rim of the hat where equilibrium is possible and not only a single point at the top. However at the top symmetric as this may be, it is an unstable situation and the slightest irregularity or the minutest flaw in balancing the ball will disturb the unstable equilibrium and cause the ball to roll down to the rim. That is unless this ball is totally massless. A massless ball, like a massless particle, could not be affected by the gravitational field. Consequently we could put this massless ball anywhere on the hat and it will stay where it is, in a neutral equilibrium. There are an uncountably infinite number of points where the ball could be in equilibrium or steady state. The manifold of the entire hat is the equilibrium surface. This total symmetry is immediately destroyed as soon as the particle or the ball acquires any none zero mass.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt is correct that El Naschie always says that mass in classical physics is far harder to understand than in quantum physics. In doing that El Naschie follows the philosophy of the great Israeli scientist and philosopher Prof. Max Jammer. The book entitled Concepts of Mass in Contemporary Physics & Philosophy, published by Princeton in 2000 is a must read for anyone who wants to understand where El Naschie is coming from.
I have followed with great interest the engaging discussion centered around E-infinity theory and the comments made by various members of our Chinese chapter and many students of Prof. El Naschie all over the world. I am prompted by this discussion to explain yet again one of the most important models which constitutes in its totality a unique theory, namely E-infinity and the golden quantum field theory. I think it is fair to say that the most difficult thing about El Naschie’s E-infinity theory is its simplicity. Those expert in high energy physics who meet this theory for the first time are virtually shocked by its simplicity. Let me outline as I have just said El Naschie’s modular curve methodology for deriving the exact first level massless state of Heterotic strings. Let us start with the original Klein modular curve. A nice colored version due to the great English mathematician Mumford is given in a paper by Mohamed El Naschie in Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, 17 (2003), 797-807. Let us concentrate on the original curve as I said and at the risk of being repetitive, let’s ignore the compactification or ramification which may be added later on as in Fig. 2a of the said paper. In the center we have a heptagon, that is to say a seven sided polygon. This structure is made of 14 triangles colored green and yellow. Around this heptagon there are 7 small heptagons, each again consisting of 14 red and yellow triangles. Moving again towards the border we have again 7 yet smaller heptagons each consisting of 14 orange and yellow triangles. Between each one of these third generation heptagons there is a kite-like structure made of 16 green and yellow triangles. In addition each of the smallest of the heptagons has a pointed nose made of 2 triangles. Thus we have in total the following number of triangles 14 + 7 x 14 + 7 x 14 + 16 x 7 + 2 x 7 = 336. This 336 is precisely the number of isometries of Klein’s modular curve in its original form. In other words, it is exactly equal to the dimension of the corresponding Lie symmetry group SL(2,7). And here comes El Naschie’s thoroughly ingenious insight. He assigned to each of these triangles a charge equal to instanton density of K3 crisp Kahler manifold. That means 24 instantons per triangle. The total worth and value of instantons is therefore 24 x 336 = 8064. This is the exact result obtained by Nobel laureate David Gross and his team and reported for instance also in a Scientific American article written many years ago by Michael Green. Now El Naschie goes one step further, in fact many steps further, and considers the compactified Klein modular curve. For that he used the gamma distribution of E-infinity theory. This is a discrete form of the Planck distribution. He starts by noting that 336 is equal 8 x 42. The 42 orbits correspond to the 42.36067977 transfinite orbit of E-infinity theory. Therefore he concludes that the weighted number of all triangles in a compactified version of Klein’s modular curve is 8 x with the preceding value which gives 338.8854382. This is approximately 339. Now the corresponding total number of massless Heterotic states would be the preceding value multiplied with the instanton number of a fuzzy K3 Kahler manifold. This instanton number is 26.18033989 instead of 24. Multiplying both values gives us the exact total number of massless states which is 8872.135955 or approximately 8872. This is approximately 808 states more than the classical solution of Gross reported by Green in Scientific American. It was a most remarkable result confirmed by the computer simulation of the Scientific American paper which we are discussing here. To find out that the dimension found by the Authors of this paper, namely 4.02 can be obtained exactly by a continuous golden ring scaling from the exact number of massless Heterotic states. In other words we just need to multiply 8872.135955 with the golden mean to the power of 16 to find 4.02. El Naschie showed that this value is not an ordinary Hausdorff dimension nor a topological dimension but rather a triple average of three different E-infinity dimensions related to the threshold of the Planck energy when it meets the low energy according to Witten’s T-duality or the P-Adic interpretation of this duality by El Naschie. I sincerely hope that I have given here the readers of this site a glimpse into the beauty, the simplicity and the incredible utility of El Naschie’s E-infinity theory which has rightly captured the imagination and interest of many people around the world who are ready to accept new ideas, in this case, brand new ideas.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisProf. Khory asked me to convey these comments to Scientific American:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMy 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
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.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI 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.
A couple of years ago a controversy erupted in Egyptian newspapers regarding the arrow of time and order out of chaos. Nobel Laureate in experimental chemistry, Egyptian born Ahmed Zuwail gave a lecture transmitted by television from the Opera House in Cairo. He said the arrow of time can never be broken. A week later, a second celebrity, Egyptian scientist, Mohamed El Naschie gave a lecture in the same place and also transmitted by some satellite stations declared that the arrow of time could be broken as indirectly indicated in this article citing the fundamental work of Nobel Laureate, Ilya Prigogine. Interestingly, neither Zuwail nor El Naschie is specialized in thermodynamics. Zuwail works on femto chemistry and is a renowned experimentalist. El Naschie is an engineer and works in quantum gravity and fractal spacetime which means he is a theoretician. To be fair to Zuwail, it should be mentioned that El Naschie was a close friend of Prigogine, so no wonder he knows about his profound work which earned him a Nobel Prize.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe present article is a lucid presentation of the philosophical pitfalls which lead to sweeping wrong generalizations. I still recall how many idiotic comments were made by totally ignorant journalists about this subject at the time.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe work of Nobel Laureate Ilya Prigogine on irreversibility in micro physics is implicitly vindicated in the recent article of J. Ambjorn in scientific American. The point may be as follows: Quantum mechanics may appear reversible, however quantum gravity is not. The resolution may be found in fractal spacetime as argued by Mohamed El Naschie and Ervin Goldfain (http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=the-self-organizing-quantum-universe)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDrs. John Baez from UC, Riverside and Skoda Zoran of no fixed address known to me expressed recently their deep surprise about Dr. El Naschie’s use of the 17 stein spaces. The surprise is really mine. I am deeply surprised that they think there is nothing called two and three stein spaces. In fact they said it doesn’t make even sense and they don’t know that there are 17 of them. This is truly surprising because it is a well known fact - a textbook stuff rather than cutting edge research. The classification of one, two and three stein spaces is given in the modern textbook on Riemannian geometry. Not surprisingly one stein space is an Einstein space. The spaces are deeply connected to compact and non-compact exceptional Lie symmetry group. They are exactly 17 and the sum of their dimension is exactly 686 as indicated for the first time by El Naschie. I wish people will get their facts right before we need to have an International Journal for Misinformation whose function is to correct all the nonsense littering certain blogs. People are already experimenting with a new fine mesh Google to filter away the coarse grained nonsense. An additional surprise is that Dr. John Baez is indeed an exceptional mathematical physicist who has introduced many imaginative ideas to knot theory and quantum gravity and he should know about the stein spaces.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisexceptional Lie group which according to you does not exist, why do not you learn first your mathematics before you make big words. I do not have a great love lost for commercial publishing but they have their good sides because they evade the old boys clubs. What is really despicable are the majority of the self-styled so-called scientific blogs and their owners. In this sense and knowing that Scientific American is a commercial publishing I give them my sincere appreciation and congratulate them on their professionalism and impartiality.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBy AWT the behavior of Universe is analogous to behavior of hypothetical infinitelly dense particle gas, i.e. the Aether, as being observed from perspective of its fluctuations.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://aetherwavetheory.blogspot.com
The work of Mohamed El Naschie could be easily understood in terms of theories connected to quantum logic and quantum sets. Quantum sets was discussed in different forms by David Finkelstein from Georgia Tech. It is related to some pioneering work done in the early days of the Copenhagen Interpretation in Germany. To be more specific, El Naschies Cantor set theory is a computational version of the theory known as partially ordered sets or posets. This theory was developed in England and was revived recently using what is called Causal Set Theory. It is well known that the work of El Naschie is based on the deterministically chaotic sets. Loosely speaking, partially ordered set may be envisaged as a deterministically chaotic one and in a relatively recent work published in the proceedings of the American Institute of Physics, Mohamed El Naschie compared his work to that of G. tHoofts recent call for a revision of quantum mechanics as following: While tHooft is looking at the roots of deterministic quantum mechanics, El Naschie found that these roots are deterministically random classical mechanics.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt is not possible to understand new ideas unless one is open to new ideas. I am quite confident that a new quantum field theory based on discrete posets will be fully developed in the next few years. Many will ask themselves then, how could we have possibly misunderstood El Naschies work for numerology while anyone, with a minimum of goodwill, will recognize it immediately as computational quantum set theory.
D. Hume
With respect my learned friends, it is wholly untrue that Mohamed El Naschie publishes his papers exclusively in Chaos, Solitons & Fractals. Here are two samples of about 250 others. First, Superstrings, knots and noncommutative geometry in E-infinity space, published in Int. Journal of Theoretical Physics, Vol. 37, No. 12, 1998. The Editor-in-Chief is Prof. David Finkelstein from Georgia Tech University, himself a distinguished theoretical physicist. I know that the referee of this particular paper was connected to the Nobel prize. Second, Average exceptional Lie group hierarchy and high energy physics, published in Frontiers of Fundamental & Computational Physics. American Inst. of Physics 2008, AIP Conference Proceedings, 1018. Mohamed El Naschie presented his work and lectured in the presence of the following Nobel laureates in physics: Gerrardus ‘tHooft, Douglas Osheroff, Ilya Prigogine, Anthony Leggett, Gerd Bennig. He was in countless conferences and has been honored by numerous universities and institutions all over the world. Even lacking all of that, what right does anyone have to slander and defame out of hatred, jealousy and god knows what else in such a despicable way as what I have witnessed on the modern menace of our age of so called scientific blogs.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe correct way to start to understand El Naschie’s work is set theory and quantum probability. An excellent starting point is probably the work of Stanley P. Gudder from the University of Denver, Colorado. On page 75/76 of his classical book published by Academic Press in 1988 he introduces posets. This is an abbreviation for partially ordered sets. In May 1996 Gudder published an excellent paper edited by Prof. M.S. El Naschie. The paper was entitled Hyperfinite quantum random walks. Gudder, as befitting a great mathematical physicist of his stature, acknowledged the work of Prof. S. Hemion, an outstanding British mathematician working in Germany. To close the circuit Hemion, in a pioneering paper entitled A class of partially ordered sets acknowledged Mohamed El Naschie’s work as an application of his theory in physics. Hemion cited the following paper of El Naschie Average symmetry, stability and ergodicity of multidimensional Cantor sets. This paper was published in the old version of the present day European Journal of Physics. This was the journal where Einstein published many of his papers and it was located in Italy and called N. Cimento. This particular paper is in No. 109, p. 149 (1994). Defamatory allegations are extremely ugly. In the scientific milieu it is rare and takes such vicious form only when someone has something to hide. I wish those who are tormented by envy and jealousy would thoroughly research the subject first before making such despicable allegations.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisUsing
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisUsing set theory for a discrete space time makes a great deal of sense. I am intrigued by what previous commentators said about the connection between El Naschie theory and the work of Stanley Gudder and G Hemion. I think it is correct to describe the work on E-Infinity theory as computational posets. In this connection I just came across a brand new paper titled: Particle propagators on discrete spacetime- written by Steven Johnston and published in Classical and Quantum Gravity, 25 September 2008.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhen you read this paper thoroughly, you realize that it is the same program as the work of El Naschie. I personally think that Coexter and Reflection Groups is a better mathematical foundation for the program of El Naschie. But the relation between Steven Johnston and the work of El Naschie is truly remarkable.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSome have been asking, although with nothing good in the back of their minds, what El Naschie was doing as a Ph.D. student. I found a remarkable book on Stability and Catastrophe by J.M.T. Thompson, University College, London and a fellow of the Royal Society. The book is called: Instabilities and Catastrophes in Science and Engineering and published in 1982 by John Wiley and Sons. In this book and on page 54, Sir J. M. T. Thompson writes: The buckling and post buckling of a strut on an elastic foundation with a free, un-pinned end has been discussed by El Naschie who has also elucidated the mechanics of ring buckling.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI have inquired further and found out that both Thompson and El Naschie were working in a famous stability research group founded and directed by Lord Henry Chilver who was the adviser of Margaret Thatcher on all research and higher education matters.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI have a hunch that it is not religion or racial discrimination which is causing many so-called respectable gentlemen to gang against Mohamed El Naschie. I think it has something to do with King Faisal Prize. It has something to do with the manipulation that takes place. Arabs are well known to fight against one another. They rather see a foreigner win than one of their own. It is a strange aberration of this once great nation. Somebody is capitalizing on this inglorious characteristic. I think I know that a man who answers to the name of Al Hindi is twisting things to the benefit of certain people whose names have been mentioned on this site many times.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe holy grail of quantum gravity is an exact calculation of the super symmetric inverse coupling. Nobel Laureate Steven Weinberg in his well known classical book - The theory of Field, he calculated this coupling and found that it is equal to 17. Mohamed El Naschie, on the other hand, made the same calculation and concluded that it must be in the region of 24 and subsequently introduced an exact theory and found that the integer value must be 26. Now it is very easy to find who is right and who is wrong. If the Nobel Laureate is wrong, then all what I am saying is give Mohamed El Naschie a chance. This sounds like the Beatle song by John Lennon. But seriously why don’t you write to Nobel Laureate Steven Weinberg and ask him. He is in Austin, Texas. This is the same University where the owner of the n-Category café occupies a position of a Professor of Physics. Alternatively if you are afraid to write to a truly great Nobel Laureate in Physics, which Steven Weinberg is, then write to an expert on the subject in CERN. The man to write to and I think he probably knows El Naschie is John Ellis. I think this is the way to settle scientific disputes. This is an elegant valid and intelligent way to stop all this ongoing slander which is foreign to all scientific values which we all cherish.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisChapeau for the sense of humor and the nerve of the Café Royal Proprietor alias n-Category Café au Lait!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDr. F. Tengelin was quicker than me or more brave than me. I was just thinking of saying the same thing. Let me make his statement more precise. Prof. Steve Weinberg who developed the electro weak theory and shared the Nobel prize with two others is the author of the most authoritative book on quantum field theory. In volume 3 of his book The Quantum Theory of Fields published by Cambridge University Press in 2000 he states on page 192 that the inverse super symmetric unification coupling of all fundamental gauge forces is 17.5. This value is given by his equation 28.2.19. Finding this result scared me quite a bit because I used Prof. El Naschies result which comes to 24.28. This is a large discrepancy. I repeated the calculation again and again but I always found 24.28 and never 17.5. To make things worse Prof. El Naschie noticed immediately that 17.5 must be a miscalculation and said that the exact integer value must be 26. That means 17.5 must be wrong and 24.28 is only an approximation to the exact value which is 26. He said it is obvious that 26 must be correct. He directed me to his paper in Chaos, Solitons & Fractals 35, p. 862 (2008) entitled Non-perturbative super symmetric quantum gravity coupling. I am desperate to know who is right and who is wrong? This result will not affect either the career of a Nobel laureate or the career of a well established professor but it could be devastating for me. I would be extremely grateful to anyone who could help me decide who is right, Prof. Weinberg or Prof. El Naschie. Please send me your answers as quick as possible to the address below.
Ayman Elokaby
Dept. of Physics
University of Alexandria
Egypt
Dr. F. Tengelin was quicker than me or more brave than me. I was just thinking of saying the same thing. Let me make his statement more precise. Prof. Steve Weinberg who developed the electro weak theory and shared the Nobel prize with two others is the author of the most authoritative book on quantum field theory. In volume 3 of his book The Quantum Theory of Fields published by Cambridge University Press in 2000 he states on page 192 that the inverse super symmetric unification coupling of all fundamental gauge forces is 17.5. This value is given by his equation 28.2.19. Finding this result scared me quite a bit because I used Prof. El Naschies result which comes to 24.28. This is a large discrepancy. I repeated the calculation again and again but I always found 24.28 and never 17.5. To make things worse Prof. El Naschie noticed immediately that 17.5 must be a miscalculation and said that the exact integer value must be 26. That means 17.5 must be wrong and 24.28 is only an approximation to the exact value which is 26. He said it is obvious that 26 must be correct. He directed me to his paper in Chaos, Solitons & Fractals 35, p. 862 (2008) entitled Non-perturbative super symmetric quantum gravity coupling. I am desperate to know who is right and who is wrong? This result will not affect either the career of a Nobel laureate or the career of a well established professor but it could be devastating for me. I would be extremely grateful to anyone who could help me decide who is right, Prof. Weinberg or Prof. El Naschie. Please send me your answers as quick as possible to the address below.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAyman Elokaby
Dept. of Physics
University of Alexandria
Egypt
I have been asked by G. Carroll to post the following comment:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf you want to know who is or who was Mohamed El Naschie then your best bet is to ask Prof. Alastair Walker. Prof. Walker was a member of the stability research group in University College, founded by Lord Chilver. He wrote the introduction to Prof. El Naschie’s book on Stress, Stability and Chaos published 1990 by McGraw Hill. I think Walker was his thesis supervisor. Walker was last the Dean of Engineering in the University of Surrey. It is simple if you want to know the truth but of course, those who are asking these questions, do not want to know the truth.
G. Carroll
M. Gerrard asked me to post the following comment:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI have a big surprise for you. Mohamed El Naschie did not write 350 papers, he wrote about 900 papers. I am not counting his papers published in Arabic. He is practically an authority on everything. A true renaissance man. Not an Einstein but a Leonardo da Vinci when you count his phenomenal knowledge of art, music, literature, history, politics and economy. Now how can anybody master so much? I cannot tell you but he definitely does not spend his time writing defamatory letters or slandering anybody. Of course he has the opportunity and the means to do what he wants to do but this is a necessary yet not sufficient condition to achieve excellence, for that you must have character as well as courage.
M. Gerrard
I have been asked by A. Jones to post the following comment:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe best man to ask is Gerard ‘tHooft. He is a Nobel Laureate in physics for 1990 or was it 1999? Any case Mohamed El Naschie dedicated a whole issue of Chaos, Solitons & Fractals to Prof. ‘tHooft on the occasion of his birthday. He wrote a very nice Editorial about him so why go on guessing Dr. Baez? Just ask Prof. ‘tHooft about his opinion. I would have thought this was the logical and more civilized way to go about things.
A.Jones
Ali Khan asked me to post the following comment:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI have a simple question for Dr. John Baez. If Prof. Mohamed El Naschie’s work is as horribly wrong as you are trying to convince us, why are people snatching his ideas? Why are you using his terminology and general philosophy? I think we can wait until heaven freezes and you will never give an answer, only second hand jokes and boring sarcasm with no meaning.
Ali Khan
M. Otter asked me to post the following comment:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou guys should forget all about that. The whole thing is just a diversion. If Mohamed El Naschie is sufficiently slandered and discredited then anybody can help himself to his work and call it his own. That is the only rationale behind this campaign.
M. Otter
I have been asked by John Clarke to post the following comment:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSuppose El Naschie has published his work in the journal of which he is the Editor in Chief. So what? This is completely common. The most important paper on chaos and turbulence written by David Ruelle, was referred by David Ruelle and published by David Ruelle in his own journal. And thank God for that; this enormously important paper would otherwise have been lost to science for ever. As David Ruelle in his popular book admitted, his paper was rejected by almost every well established journal in the world. And even if the papers were not refereed, there was nothing sinister about it. The name of the Author is clearly printed on the Journal as its Editor in Chief with all the editorial power of an Editor in Chief. Everything was transparent. How could anybody derive from this fact that he is free to borrow generously from these papers as much as he wants without giving the Author credit? The most important thing is that these papers are published. If you do not like them, you should not use them. If you use them you must refer to them. Anything else is very bad logic and I do not find the way Dr. Ambjorn, Dr. Loll and Dr. Jurkiewicz dealt with this problem convincing nor acceptable. They have never commented nor gave any explanation to anyone as if they were above the law, written or unwritten. I do not think this is something good and the diversion created by Dr. Baez makes things even far worse. Trying to involve Nature and push one of its journalists, Mr Schiermeier to write something about Chaos, Solitons & Fractals is probably the worse course of action possible. Why don’t people learn from history. Watergate, Lewinskygate and so many other gates. It seems that the only thing man learns from history is that man does not learn from history.
John Clarke
I have been asked by J. Lord to post the following comment:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI would like to come back to the connection between Mohamed El Naschie’s work and the paper on causal sets published in Classical & Quantum Gravity and mentioned on this site. The Author of this paper is a professor in Imperial College. Interestingly Dr. Renate Loll got her Ph.D. from Imperial College although she is German and is working in Holland. I wonder what this means for the work of Prof. El Naschie. It is completely based on partially ordered sets. Maybe I am becoming paranoid.
J. Lord
This is a direct response to Elokaby 11.21.08 3.16 p.m. and F. Tengelin 11.21.08 8.53 a.m.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt is obvious to me that the inverse coupling constant calculated by El Naschie is correct while that given by Nobel laureate Steven Weinberg is wrong. Printing errors or mistakes are common among the best of us, Nobel laureates not excluded. So there is nothing unusual about that. What is unusual or rather interesting is how quickly Mohamed El Naschie and Elokaby noticed the error. The value given by Weinberg in his book The Quantum Theory of Field, Vol. 3 is 17.5. This is the inverse unification coupling in case of super symmetry. Most of the values found in the literature are around 24. Mohamed El Naschie summarized these results in Table 5 of his paper On a class of general theories for high energy particle physics, Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, 14 (2002), p. 657. Using the perturbated equation of Weinberg, El Naschie and later Elokaby found that the value is about 24 so I can conclude from that, as did El Naschie, that there was a minor arithmetical mistake. However using the exact non-perturbated equation developed by El Naschie, the exact integer value is 26. I have not explained yet how he could have noticed so quickly that 17.5 is definitely wrong. To explain that satisfactorily we need to look into the non-super symmetric case. Weinberg gives this value on p. 247 of the same book to be 41. Now this is reasonable as indicated from the values gathered from the literature in Table 6, p. 658 of the above mentioned paper of El Naschie. Again El Naschie gives the exact integer value using his exact equation as 42. Notice that the difference between 26 and 42 is exactly 16 and the difference between 26 and 16 is exactly 10. Let us go on and note that the difference between 16 and 10 is 6 and the difference between 10 and 6 is 4. 4 on the other hand is either 2 multiplied with 2 or 2 plus 2. I am sure you have already noticed it is a Fibonacci Gross law starting with 2 and 2 as seeds. The 2 could be interpreted physically as the two-dimensional world sheet of string theory. When two world sheets interact together, they span the four-dimensional spacetime and then we obtain the string hierarchy of Heterotic string theory. I will not go into that. This is all explained admirably countless times in the equally countless number of papers which El Naschie has published but alas no one reads. That is how El Naschie noticed immediately that 17.5 cannot be right. In a very recent lecture El Naschie gave a highly interesting physical meaning for the wrong value 17 found by Weinberg but it will lead to far to start discussing this again.
From all of the above I conclude that El Naschie has found a sound method, a model or a theory which ever you prefer to call it which can serve as an excellent additional tool in exploring the Planck regime and quantum gravity. It is better to discuss the contents of a paper, not the address of an Author, his affiliation and whether the post office from which he mailed his paper was near to the Editorial Office or not. We are paying a very high price for our advances in technology and methods of communication, particularly the internet. The internet has encouraged things like pedophilia and pseudo scientific blogs devoted to slander and character assassination. We have to learn to live with that and ignore and non-scientific parasitic phenomena associated with technical progress. In this sense I end my comment.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYes I agree Mohamed El Naschie could produce a paper a day. That must seem to the Philistines terrifying. I know the guy since we were together in elementary school. At the beginning he was the class primus. But as his interests multiplied, he was not doing in the final year exams as good as he could. He regained his supremacy when he graduated from the University in Hannover. The guy could produce an original idea every one hour. It could be in science, art, philosophy or politics. It can be sometime unnerving for those around him. But he is simply a bundle of energy.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI see that it sounds incredible that a guy can produce 350 original research papers in such a short time. However this is all what the slanderer wants you to believe. EL Naschie was the editor in chief of Chaos, Solitons & Fractals for almost 20 years. When you divide 350 by 20 this is a very modest number of papers per month. However I admit that his rate of production increased enormously as he got older. Well off and retired at the age of 66 he worked with more energy and concentration than 60 of the Baez type of the neo-flower power generation. I think Mohamed El Naschie works feverishly with such intensity because he realized how slow the mainstream in theoretical physics comprehends new ideas. So he keeps presenting the same idea from enormous different viewpoints appealing to different specializations with the hope they understand. That explains to me the relatively high number of papers he has produced. That will not explain anything to those who really want nothing else but discredit the guy by hook or crook and mostly by crook.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisJohn Baez has a book published in World Scientific called Gauge Field, Knots and Gravity. The picture on the front page shows a rope made to a knot connected by Feynmans’s gauge graphs and under it Einstein’s equation of general relativity. J. Baez accused El Naschie of mixing too many things together. I find it really a case of the oven calling the pot black. I read also the book from beginning to end and I see why Baez is jealous. He was never able to break free from the standard knowledge of the field. He did not even discuss wild knots and wild topology. That is why he cannot reach the sweeping generalization which Mohamed El Naschie was able to reach by including wild topology. The editor of the series, Louis Kauffman, will understand what I am saying here. Kauffman is an excellent man and he is the one who stimulated Mohamed El Naschie work on wild topology in high energy physics. Baez did not understand the meaning of 8 multiplied by Pi square although he writes it everywhere in his book. If he wants to understand it, he better stop slandering Mohamed El Naschie and instead of trying to find his telephone number and home address, he should read his work attentively.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat my friends are calling Philistines are frightened from one paper a day by El Naschie. They say he cannot do it. Mohamed El Naschie like his most beloved hero Barrack Hussein Obama, said yes we can. And I say yes he did.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMohamed El Naschie is the elder brother, teacher and friend of Amr Elnashai, Director of the largest earthquake engineering centre in the USA at Urbana, Champaign. In a special issue of CS&F dedicated to Mohamed’s 60th birthday, Amr wrote a wonderful tribute to his brother entitled Recollections. The El Naschie’s are one of Egypt’s most distinguished and richest families and all three brothers are famous. Said, the middle brother is a famous professor at Pennsylvania State University. Although he has some serious health problems he is a distinguished professor of environmental studies and a world renowned researcher of chaos in chemical engineering. He dedicated two of his books published by Gordon & Breach to Mohamed El Naschie. You should see http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=the-self-organizing-quantum-universe and http://www.telegraph.co.uk/scienceandtechnology/science/sciencetopics/largehadroncollider/3314456/Surfer-dude-stuns-physicists-with-theory-of-everything.html#postComment.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI remember seeing Barkley Rosser at the Conference in honor of Prof. Tonu Puu in Odense where I also met Mohamed El Naschie who is truly a distinguished gentleman “Un homme distingue” with all its implications. Tonu Puu retired from the University but he did not retire from the Journal. In fact he wrote me a letter, a couple of weeks ago expressing his admiration for the versatility of Chaos, Solitons & Fractals. It is wrong to describe this Journal as a Theoretical Physics Journal. The article in Nature is missing completely the point. But this is really not my concern. I was in blissful ignorance of the low standards which academicians can reach but alas! Now I know of Baez , his n-Category café and his crew and what struck me most is that they are blocking supporters of El Naschie from posting comments on their blog. This happened to me when I tried to respond to Rosser’s comments on their blog. The trick Baez and his followers are pursuing, as the propaganda Minister of Adolf Hitler put it, is to make a lie so big that people would say even 50% of it is true then it is enough and when it is said so loud and by the mob then it must be true. I can assure you that ninety percent of what is written on their site – the n-Category café - are half truths and guess which half are they putting? They are connected to a blog known as Backreaction and they are coordinating their work very well. They are experts in this business. In the Nature article, the name of John Baez, the originator of all this rambling is conspicuously absent. The valiant brave hero feels more secure behind the bar of his café. His lawyer told him that blogs are difficult to prosecute. The bad news for him is that the loopholes in the international law have been taken care of so he may enjoy it while it lasts. Two or three more weeks make no difference.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisj
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis article confirms my assertions that Causality itself is the originating structure of the universe. Not to be too theistic, but Causality as an analogy of the will of God reconciles all conflicts between traditional science and human psychology and morality.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn the last paragraph the author mentions a "threshold". Is this "threshold" a reference to the Planck Scale? Because your suggestion that existence is emergent from a fractal baseline, corresponds exactly with my own visualizations of what the universe must "look" or act like beyond the Planck scale limitation. I am not a scientist, I have no scientific background, I cannot even aspire to consider myself an amateur theorist. But I have always been fascinated with the nature of existence, and as I have gotten older, my derivations of cognitive modeling have begun to increasingly center around the nature of Causality itself. I have written many blogs on the subject, in my limited scope and comprehension of it, on my page at My space,com/astrochronic.
I am not going to read all of these comments, but suffice to say, I have no idea who John Baez is or what he has to do with this article or the assertions of its authors.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSome people never fail to politicize and desperately attempt to discredit theories that conflict with their own self serving ideology. Intellectual prions abound. Causality has a solution inevetably.
I also want to add an inarguable truth: "If a scientist is Athiest then they are prejudiced and cannot be trusted to be objective in the pursuit of understanding and explaining the true nature of reality. They have unscientifically eliminated a possibly integral axiom."
Looking for the numerous amazing articles of El naschie, I found a wonderful one whose title is
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this“P-Adic analysis and the transfinite E8 exceptional Lie symmetry group unification ”
M.S. El Naschie
King Abdullah Institute for Nano and Advanced Technology, KSU, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
Volume 38, Issue 3, November 2008, Pages 612-614
Just reading the first sentence in the introduction which is
“One of the most amazing results in high energy physics is the T-duality discovered in the context of superstring theories by Witten [1] ”
But, for your surprise, the list of references you find no mention of any reference of Witten.
Reference [1] is just a paper of El naschie himself. Here is list
[1] M.S. El Naschie, A few hints and some theorems about Witten’s M theory and T-duality, Chaos, Solitons & Fractals (2005), pp. 545–548.
[2] A. Leonovich, Comments on E8 unification and P-Adic numbers. http:/www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xm1=/eareth/2008/01/22/scieinstein122.xml (10/03/2008).
[3] M.S. El Naschie, Transfinite harmonization by taking the dissonance out of the quantum field symphony, Chaos, Solitons & Fractals (2007).
[4] M.S. El Naschie, High energy physics and the standard model from the exceptional Lie groups, Chaos, Solitons & Fractals 36 (2008), pp. 1–17.
[5] M. Kaku, Introduction to superstrings and M-theory, Springer, New York (1999) see p. 385 in particular.
[6] M.S. El Naschie, Infinite dimensional Branes and the E(∞) topology of Heterotic super strings, Chaos, Solitons & Fractals 12 (2001), pp. 1047–1055.
The first reference as already mentioned is El naschie paper. The big surprise about this paper is its tilte
“A few hints and some theorems about Witten’s M theory and T-duality” here again we find no reference to any of Witten’s papers . here is list of references of this paper ;
[1] E. Goldfain, Cantorian spacetime and unified field theory, Chaos, Solitons & Fractals 23 (2005), pp. 701–710.
[2] M.S. El Naschie, A review of E-infinity theory and the mass spectrum of high energy physics, Chaos, Solitons & Fractals 19 (2004), pp. 209–236
[3] M.S. El Naschie, Gödel universe, dualities and high energy particles in E-infinity, Chaos, Solitons & Fractals 25 (2005) (3), pp. 759–764.
[4] El Naschie MS. On the cohomology and instantons number in E-infinity Cantorian spacetime. Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, in press doi:10.1016/j.chaos.2005.12.019.
[5] M. Kaku, Strings, conformal fields and M-theory, Springer-Verlag, New York (2000).
[6] A. Khrennikov, Non-Archimedean analysis, Kluwer Academic Publishers, London (1997).
[7] V. Vladimirov, I. Valovich and E. Zelenov, P-Adic analysis and mathematical physics, World Scientific, Singapore (1998).
Something more peculiar about the list of references, of the first paper, is that one of the references is just a comment on an article published in the Telegraph, unfortunately the comment has been deleted. Also the address of the first paper raises another question about the so many false affiliation of El Naschie. The address seems not to be related to his activities.
It is obvious that there is no kind of peer review for these papers even at the fromal level apart from the content.
One can guess that papers may be generated using a program of language generation like n-moles or n-grams or whatever kind of program used. I think, at least for me, that the ‘a b’ of scientific writing should fulfill certain basic criteria:
1- If you mention a paper of Witten (or any name) [], then one should put reference for that person in the square bracket.
2- If you have a paper titled with theory of some one, then the list of references should contain at least one reference for that guy.
I hope, by now, El naschie has a plenty of time to fix the bugs in the program generating papers, implementing these two mentioned rules in the code and acknowledge this blog for drawing his attention.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOne of the major things which convinces me that this there is a defamation campaign against Prof. Naschie and that the real roots of this campaign lie in his success and the malignant envy which some have as well as the distraction technique employed by those who just plagiarized his work are the following: Why don’t you discuss the real scientific content of the paper if you are capable of? Why do you keep repeating the same old charges again and again with boring repetitiveness? The charges are the same: the references are not perfect and it is obvious there is no peer review. Why is it so obvious? What is obvious is that there is an agenda itched in the souls of those who are tormented with jealousy. Poor souls! How could anyone spend so much time saying so little? There is no doubt that this is a case not for scientific American but for the International Journal of Psychoanalysis. A well meant advice which we said it many times before: Go and see a shrink.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEl naschie using his own journal as
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisa stock for his endless uncountable papers.
Here is, one of his marvelous papers found in Chaos, soltion and fractals.
The title
On the universality class of all universality classes and E-infinity spacetime physics
M.S. El Naschie,
King Abdul Aziz City of Science and Technology, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
Available online 18 October 2006.
Abstract
It is argued that E-infinity theory may represent the universality class of all universality classes of certain discrete dynamical maps which are at the root of relevant field theories. First we give a concise derivation of the basic equations of E-infinity and its ground state. Subsequently it is shown that the independence of the results obtained from the details of any equations of motion or Lagrangian is a clear indication that E-infinity may represent the universality class of all universality classes in the sense of Cantor with regard to relevant quantum field theories.
Im quite amzed how this could be published.
In fact, for any one who knows little about particle physics realize that the results of any theory depend strongly on the particle content of the theory. For example in QCD, asymptotic freedom depends on the number of colours and flavors. The presence of CP violation in the quark sector depends on the number of generations. No CP violation for one and two generations, at least three generations is required for the presence of CP violation.
To St
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt is not important if El naschie is a phd holder or not.
The number of his papers is 350 or 1000 papers is also
immetrial. If one is allowed to write in his style without any
peer review one could publish 6000 papers in twenty years.
The main problems in his papers is they don’t make sense
whatever mathematically or physicaly.
About the address “King Abdullah Institute for Nano and Advanced Technology, KSU, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia” on
his recent papers is very supicious as it has no relation to his
activities.
On the Ninth International Symposium Frontiers of
Fundamental and Computational Physics 2008 had a lecture titled
“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.
M.S. EL NASCHIE
King Abdullah Al Saud Institute for Nano & Advanced Technologies*,
Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
*) Director
one can check
http://agenda.fisica.uniud.it/difa/getFile.py/access?contribId=52&sessionId=32&resId=0&materialId=slides&confId=9
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 sciencetisic"
http://www.nano-ksu.com/publish/article_46.shtml
web page for "Supervisory Committee to King Abdullah Institute for Nanotechnology"
http://www.nano-ksu.com/publish/article_63.shtml
Can the great man explain for us.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis is a direct answer to Ben Webster, Ph.D. 2007. What I find remarkable that a young researcher who just got his Ph.D. from an Ivy League University, Princeton is writing about a subject completely outside his own expertise. It is true El Naschie uses knot theory among many other things mainly non linear dynamics to model high energy physics. However, you are almost a pure mathematician working in a department of pure mathematics. Therefore you should be critical enough not to commit yourself to such common language and summary judgment belittling people whose work you would never understand without serious studies that will take you at least three years. When will people writing on blogs stop behaving like vandalists smearing the walls of public sanitary facilities with obscene words and pictures. At least this I would have thought is beneath Princeton, dear Webster.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI hope this blog could have sufficient tolerance and a minimum of scientific thinking to accept a dissenting voice. You are pretending as if the most important thing is how many papers a scientist publishes. Any reasonable person, let alone a scientist, knows exactly that the number of papers per se is neither here nor there. Since some people for reasons better known to themselves have used the theme as a pretext for launching an attack on Prof. Mohamed El Naschie. Let me give you at least the facts as they are and not as some, for their own end, would like them to be. Mohamed El Naschie is known to be prolific. This has nothing to do with excellence. He published something in the order of 900 papers or even more, simply because he likes to convey his ideas in his own style on all conceivable subjects including art, economy, engineering and physics - something like 250 papers have been published in his own journal in the last 20 years. This is not really much in terms of productivity. It may be even nothing in terms of originality. But these blogs are not the place to discuss it because we cannot write a decent equation understandable to anybody in any of these blogs. When you don’t write equations and you don’t talk pure science, all what is left are gossip. If you add to gossips envy and vendettas you get the ugly face of internet blogs. You should research the background of the man which some would like to bedevil. Mohamed El Naschie is well known to have been a very wealthy man by the age of 35. He was a full professor of engineering by the age of 34. He has never applied for his research in physics for any funding whatsoever. He never got a penny out of his research in theoretical physics. His ambition is well known to those who live in the Middle East. Some said he wanted to be the Prime Minister of Egypt. That may well be the case. But I doubt very much he could do this job for a single day for reasons I don’t want to go into on this blog. El Naschie is a free spirited man and he established CS&F to help scientists in the Third World. The Journal was supposed to be free of charge or at a minimum for a very modest subscription. He came into conflict with Elsevier precisely because of that and he was very upset to see that CS&F turned into a money spinning machine for commercial publishing. The breaking point came many years later with regard to Elsevier translation business enterprise in the People’s Republic of China. Some outspoken persons called it a racket. That may be harsh. But El Naschie called it the end of scientific publishing as he knows it. I was privileged to some of the correspondence which he exchanged with top directors in Elsevier. El Naschie used to improve the manuscripts of good Chinese physicists and mathematicians with weak command of the English Language free of charge. You have to know the reasons: El Naschie is an Egyptian nationalist – he is neither a communist, nor a capitalist nor a Muslim fundamentalist or any of these readymade labels. The president of Jia tong University in Shanghai summed it up like that: Egypt was the first country in the world to recognize the People’s Republic of China and to withdraw its recognition for Formosa or national China. The People’s Republic of China was the first country to stand by Egypt when France and England invaded to recapture the Suez Canal. The President continued by saying it is a pleasure to honor today an Egyptian scientist and friend of China namely Mohamed El Naschie. This might sound to many Europeans as grotesque or comic. However this is what makes Mohamed El Naschie tick. It is typical for him to stand with the underdog, named the Third World where he originally comes from. It is typical for him to be loyal to those who stood with him and his country in its darkest hours. It is as simple as that. I know how hard it is for ordinary physicists to think that there are people who love science for the sake of science. Science is not how Mohamed El Naschie earns his money – that is for sure. CS& F was a costly project for him in terms of time and yes in terms of money. Of course Mohamed is extremely stubborn and he is a formidable opponent when he feels he is right. Those who have charged him wrongly and falsely, I am absolutely confident that they will find out that it is their greatest mistake in life. As with regard to the five papers in the last issue in CS&F written by him, this is really a bad joke. These papers were published on Elsevier science direct site a long time ago. It is the publishing officer in Elsevier who compiled then a hard copy out of the pool of papers. In this particular case, I can tell you an amazing story which I happened to know. The lady in Elsevier compiled this issue with ten papers by Prof. El Naschie and sent it for his approval. He was very busy and said more or less ok ok. I was there and I told him there is a trap and I smell a rat. I said it is ridiculous that Elsevier has put ten papers of yours in one issue although you never approve more than 3 papers at a time per issue if any. El Naschie jumped and said Good gracious, tell them to delete immediately 5 of these papers in order not to delay the production of the issue. I believe someone in Elsevier was trying to frame El Naschie knowingly and on purpose to create a case against him because he opposed the new Elsevier Translation Empire which they set out in China. They charge unreasonable amounts of money for what El Naschie has been doing any case year in and year out free of charge as a service for the young people of a great nation which stood by his country in one of its darkest hours. You have never been so misled about a man as you have been misled about the real motives, quality and character of Mohamed El Naschie. Yes I know him very well but this would never be a reason for me to take his side except that I know that all what has been said about him is more or less a fabrication. In two weeks from now at the most, you will read the truth about this plot in most of the accessible media including Nature. Thank you for being so tolerant to allow somebody to say the truth as he sees it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTo those responsible for Secret Blogging Seminar Blog, a sub sub sub branch of the n-Category café. You remain faithful to the idea behind your entire net of blogs directed by John Baez. Any dissenting opinion you take off immediately. You are devoted to show process in the style of the Unholy Chinese Cultural Revolution. Your logic is that of the mobs devoted to intimidation. So this is what John Baez calls a one man internet army. At the end you will see that you are no more than Dad’s army only without humor or purpose. You have systematically taken off every single dissenting voice defending Mohamed El Naschie. Your behavior is reminiscent of vicious children and has nothing to do with science or even pseudo conference on scientific publishing. You are a bad joke and when you will receive a court order restraining you and forcing you to pay for your evil deeds, you will stop laughing. You are giving a most miserable example to the youth. You have given the word blogs an infamous name. To try to evoke in you a sense of shame is trying the unfeasible.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI have tried many times to write the truth as I see it on these blogs mentioned by Boem. No way. Anything positive about El Naschie is immediately removed. John Baez describes himself as a one man internet army. Indeed he was able to construct a spider web of interconnected blogs to magnify his pathetic claims to the extent of intimidating almost any commercial publisher. He is a man with an obvious split personality. In the morning he is Dr. John Jekyl pretending to be a professor. At night he is Mr. John Hyde, an internet thug as aptly described in many previous comments. The whole this is just to distract from the basic facts which are truly disgraceful. For the work of Nottale, Ord and El Naschie Reneta Loll received a prize of 1.25 million euros in addition to 3.5 million euros on fractal spacetime. One should ask why should Renate Loll leave the prestigious Max Planx Inst. to work in a small university in Holland? She said she wanted to work with Nobel laureate Gerrard tHooft. But tHooft does not work with anybody. She answered she just wanted to be near to him. Strangely tHooft is very near to El Naschie in more than one sense. El Naschies, Ord and Nottales approach is based on indeterministic classical mechanics that is deterministic chaos. Later on tHooft started working on what he termed deterministic quantum mechanics. He published a paper or a discussion on the subject in Physics World which I have read. He did not mention Nottale, Ord or El Naschie. Never the less, I saw a whole issue of Chaos, Solitons & Fractals which was dedicated to Gerrard tHoofts 60th birthday. In fact the cover of this issue had a very nice picture of tHooft on it and in the Editorial, El Naschie praised tHooft for indirectly supporting the approach pioneered by Nottale, Ord and himself. These are the sober facts. No allegation and no defamation. If you want to discuss El Naschies work and why it is right or wrong, there are scientific methods and venues to do so. This character assassination and despicable campaign by the one man internet army, John Baez is what makes me convinced that this is truly a conspiracy. I am equally convinced that at the end, the truth will always prevail.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI think that Elsevier is doing dirty jobs in scientific publishing. The CSF journal is owned by Elnaschie and Elsevier is getting money out of this apart from the journal subscription fees. El naschie pays for getting credibility of Elsevier and to have the chance to publish his great scientific ideas in journal hosted by a supposed reputable publishing house like Elsevier. There are other many similar cases in Elsevier.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEl naschie keeps publishing junks in CSF for a quite long time and kept unnoticed by mentoring system of Elsevier which seems very odd. While it was so obvious from the far beginning that we have a crackpot.
The same applies to Cambridge university which allowed him to publish his articles for nearly ten years 1993-2001 using its affiliation, while, for sure, he wasnt a staff member there. It is far from reality to imagine that people in Cambridge have been fooled for that long time. According to the following data base
http://www.engineeringvillage2.org
One can find:
17 articles where the affiliation is DAMTP, Cambridge, UK.
72 articles where the affiliation is Dept. of Appl. Math. & Theor. Phys., Cambridge Univ., UK
40 articles where the affiliation is Univ of Cambridge.
No prize for one who guesses at which journal those articles have been published.
It is not enough for Elsevier just to step down Elnaschie , they should explain how these things happened and what their future precautions to prevent such a misusing of editorial power. On the other side, Cambridge people should explain how it was possible for El naschie to use its affiliation for a quite long time, harming their reputation without charging him and any legal action.
The papers of El naschie would be a permanent black record for both Elsevier and Cambridge for too long time in the future.
I am addressing John Baez and his students Zoran Skoda of Croatia and Said from Egypt as well as their entourage. The problem which you seem incapable of comprehending is that you could not understand neither the motivation nor the philosophy of Mohamed El Naschie from your own perspective. The man has a completely different perspective because of the opportunities and possibilities which always existed for him from the word go. For a poor academic sucker like myself and an impoverished little devil like Skoda or Said a 100 thousand dollar grant is the ceiling of all our scientific dreams. I followed how Mohamed El Naschie evolved and it is obvious to me that he was seeking confrontation with the establishment. You are missing the point altogether. He really does not give a dam about being an Editor in Chief. His main intention was shaking the establishment of high energy physics. He was not evading anyone. Just the contrary. He sought out the establishment and confronted them with his ideas. Initially he was taking a softly, softly approach to see how far he can go I guess. Let me give you a few examples. See his paper on David Gross criticism&. In this paper he defended Sir Stanley Eddington against Nobel laureate David Gross who is known to be very sharp, a king maker and a master of manipulation. I have seen a picture of Mohamed with David Gross who actually visited him in Cairo and if I am not mistaken, he also visited him in Saudi Arabia. In fact Gross signed a contract with Saudi Arabia at the same time that El Naschie did. Second El Naschie wrote many papers presenting Nobel laureate Gerrard tHoofts work in a way that was meant to provoke but Gerrard is Mohameds best friend, as everybody knows so why is that unless he knows exactly what he wants. Finally Mohamed published a correction of the work of one of the most senior Nobel laureates in theoretical physics Steve Weinberg. Of course he wrote everything in the most polite and courteous language that there is but he knew very well the risk he is taking by pointing out a fundamental mistake in Weinbergs bible on quantum field theory. I could recite to you chapter and verse scores of such incidents which make it very clear that Mohamed felt right or wrong that he has a mission. It is described in many places as El Naschies revolution of theoretical physics. Finally the establishment woke up and realized the danger of Mohamed El Naschie for them. They had two choices. Either cut him down to size or spend a considerable amount of time to understand what he is talking about. It would have taken them at least a year or two to study dimensional theory. It would take them an equal amount of time to understand transfiniteness and then move to the transfinite dimensional theory of transfinite sets. Some of them must have thought to short circuit the situation by joining the attack on Mohamed El Naschie, motivated not by science but by a personal vendetta. This vendetta has nothing to do with Europe or with Islam. I is to do with the enormous jealousy which the Egyptian born Nobel laureate in experimental chemistry Ahmed Zuwail feels towards Mohamed and the fact that Shadia Shishini, the wife of Said Elnashaie went to prison. That much I understood from what has been written here before. The whole thing may seem complex but it is now becoming transparent. John Baez caused great confusion by pretending to defend science while it was not his motivation at all. The man simply acted out of a false understanding of loyalty to his colleague Renate Loll. Once John Baez was in this tragedy he attracted a great many numbers of internet addicts. I have not heard a single scientific argument against El Naschies work. The entire vocabulary used is very limited indeed. We have an infinite number of the following words&. garbage, crack pots, trash, incomprehensible, nonsense, pseudo science and so on. This is truly pseudo scientific criticism for which the internet and the blogs have become famous or rather, infamous. When John Baez or Said want to be really deep in analyzing Mohamed El Naschies work the best they could come with to date is a boring statistic of how many papers he has written and where he was when he wrote them. Then, as if they have nothing better to do, they start analyzing the references. It is really pathetic. The latest on this site by Said is a repetition of what he has said oh so many times before. Why is Mohamed El Naschies name not on the internet of the web page of this and that institution? It is truly a malady that these people do not see any reality except the virtual reality of the internet. If your name is not on the net, you do not exist. I am in the internet, thus I am. I guess Mohamed has asked the institution which is suffering from these criminal attacks from internet vandals to take his name out to safe guard the interests of his hosts. Said Salah El Din Hamad Elnashaie is a truly international embarrassment for Egypt, Arabia and particularly for Mohamed El Naschie. He wrote a letter to Mohamed El Naschie which I have seen. This ludicrous maniac wrote in Arabic and English that he has devoted the rest of his life to destroying Mohamed El Naschie. He said he will never rest until this is fulfilled. I truly believe him and I think that 90% of the defamation against Mohamed El Naschie is due to him and the rest is motivated by him. He is attacking this site to divert attention from the real issue which the article of Renate Loll and her generous use of the work of Nottale, Ord and Mohamed El Naschie without giving credit to any of them. Why does she do so, the answer is funding. The prize of 1.2 million euro which she got and the 3.5 million euro which she obtained for the Spinoza Inst. in Utrecht. It is the oldest story, namely fighting for money and glory. Mohamed could be accused to a certain extent rightly, that he wanted the glory of participating in a new era of doing theoretical physics differently but he could not ever be accused of fighting for money. The tragic thing about this story which very few people know, is that Said his arch enemy would have perished 20 or so years ago if it would not have been for Mohamed El Naschie who sent him for medical treatment on his own account in London and obtained for him and his wife, employment in King Saud University in Riyadh. Those in the know are aware that Said was black listed from entering Saudi Arabia and because of his extremist background could not find a job anywhere. It was Mohamed who got him employment and gave him money. This is a classical case of someone who not only bites the hand that fed him but excels in trying to destroy it. For a Christmas Eve I think this is a sad enough story and I do not intend to return to this cite again and what ever John Baez and Said will write, it will not be challenged. You can go on living in your virtual world. Good bye and may your God go with you.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf El naschie is an honest scientist and not a fraud. He should mention the web link to the institute he claimed to have a position or related to it in his website.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI challenge him to put links which shows his claims and to assure his honesty for the others. Please give links to the following claimed position
1-He is the current advisor of the Egyptian Ministry for Science and Technology (High Energy Physics and Nanotechnology)
2- He is Adviser to King Saud University on Nanotechnology, and even more he claimed to be the director of King Abdullah Al Saud Institute for Nano and Advanced Technologies.
One can check the following link where he claimed to be the director
http://agenda.fisica.uniud.it/difa/getFile.py/access?contribId=52&sessionId=32&resId=0&materialId=slides&confId=9
If you check the webpage of of King Abdullah Al Saud Institute for Nano and Advanced Technologies. You find no mention for him at all
One can check the web page for "Committees consultative sciencetisic"
http://www.nano-ksu.com/publish/article_46.shtml
web page for "Supervisory Committee to King Abdullah Institute for Nanotechnology"
http://www.nano-ksu.com/publish/article_63.shtml
In fact it reflects badly on these countries if this was true.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe internet fetishist Said Hamad paid John Baez defamation incorporated to establish yet another phony blog entitled L’affaire El Naschie. You can write anything you want against Mohamed El Naschie but they will remove immediately anything for him. That is the extent of scientific thinking of the two men mentioned, Said and John Baez the last. On December 22nd 2008 using the pseudo abbreviation BKG probably a corruption of the KBG, Said’s old ideals as a saloon communist, he wrote some entertaining comments and I will pretend they deserve to be answered. Here are the answers:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this1) The photo gallery of El Naschie appears indeed in the vol. 25 (2005) but this is an issue dedicated to his 60th birthday. It was not dedicated to his highness, Prof. Mohamed El Naschie but explicitly to the Egyptian engineering scientist and theoretical physicist, Mohamed S. El Naschie. It is completely normal to have photos on such an occasion. Said you try as much as you can, but you cannot mask your deadly jealousy and envy stemming from a rotten soul and aberration of the human gene. In evolutionary terminology, you are a mutation back in time to the missing link. 2) You smell a rat? What is so strange about that Said. It is the natural odor which surrounds you and after all what you have tried with your paid hired hands, your name is mud in Egypt and it will remain so, no matter how hard you try. 3) There is a backlog on the internet of Elsevier’s Science Direct of more than three years. Chaos, Solitons & Fractals has the highest impact factor in the history of mathematical science. This is all thanks to Mohamed El Naschie and that is exactly what is killing you Said but remember this is the same Mohamed El Naschie who took you for treatment in London on his own account, who got you a visa and a job together with your wife in Saudi Arabia. Who protected you from persecution from the University of Dhahran in Saudi Arabia and the University of Al Ain in UAE for misappropriating funds and disappearing over night. You appeared later on in the University of Auburn, Alabama but you were dismissed and then you appeared in British Columbia and you were sacked. Then as a distinguished professor for environmental studies, although you are a chemical engineer, you were sacked again. It is the same Mohamed El Naschie who tried to get you a visiting professorship at Cambridge but they did not accept you and that is why you hate Cambridge . It is the same Mohamed El Naschie who tried to get you a journal for Chaos in Chemical Engineering. Prof. Rutherford Aris was one of your supporters but Elsevier turned down the project because of your unstable character, most probably and that is why you hate Elsevier as well. To put succinctly you hate yourself and what you have become and that is what is at the root of all this evil you are living in. You became the tool for the people who have more mundane reasons to defame Mohamed El Naschie, such as Dr. Renate Loll. 4) You can either publish in your own journal or you can’t. There is not a single Editor in Chief who does not publish in his own journal. You know that very well and you are not convincing anybody in the know. It remains how many papers can one publish? You are a famous communist, albeit a saloon one, of Egypt Said so probably you are educated enough to know an important maxima from the communist manifesto. Don’t they say each according to his needs and each according to his ability? Mohamed is not just an Editor in Chief, he is the Founding Editor in Chief. He created the journal and the discipline. He published about 2-3% of all papers. Prof. Munir Nayfeh and Prof. Ali Nayfeh of the Nayfeh clan publish about 5% of all papers in their journal. Prof. Leon Chua of World Scientific journal Int. Journal of Bifurcation and Chaos publishes about 4% of all papers on an extremely limited subject called the Chua circuit. The Editors of the Elsevier journal Physica D publishes about 50% of all papers. The Editor of Physics Review publishes about 1% of all papers. When you remember how many papers they publish, you are talking about thousands of papers. I am sorry Said but all your reasoning is artificial and blown out of all proportion to fit your real reason which keeps you writing all this trash on Christmas and New Year. Your real reason is revenge and vendetta for what you have caused your self and your family and which you attribute to Mohamed El Naschie. John Baez on the other hand has a more rational reason. He comes from a show biz family and is very proud about his relation to the truly great Joan Baez. She is truly a wonderful woman but he would not qualify to be her used shoes. As a physicist he is not bad but he is surely second if not third class. For this reason he created for himself internet defamation incorporated to feel important and earn some money. In the circumstances when a friend like Dr. Loll is in distress because of plagiarizing some of Mohamed El Naschie’s work, then of course he comes to her aid. Noblesse oblige. Finally all of you are deadly jealous from the freedom which Mohamed enjoys. I am afraid he was in Cambridge Said and he refused to be tied to one University, even if it is Cambridge because he did not need to be the slave of anybody, least of all the slave of the lower emotions of hatred and jealousy like you.
I hope this will keep you busy for the rest of the vacation Said. I am sure even John Baez has something better to do, even if it is as a backup for his aunt’s band. That would be far more constructive work than nourishing this ridiculous image of a one man internet thug. Oh sorry, I think he calls it army. Bon Noel and happy new year and may God relieve you from your pains.
Amr
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAll Editors in Chief publish in their own Journals. This is completely normal. How much one publishes is a matter of ability. Therefore what you should discuss is the scientific quality of the publications. Reading the defamation written against Mohamed El Naschie, it is clear that no scientific issue whatsoever was considered. I am sure that those writing on this subject are completely incapable of a rational scientific discussion. Internet blogs are known for sensational news and scandals. They live from media frenzy. This is not the place to discuss science.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAl Cardenas
The power of the almighty chance brought me to this site. I know both Mohamed and Said. It is truly an incredible irony because Said Salah El Din Hamed Elnashaie is the one who can write papers quicker than he himself could read them. I am a chemical engineer just like Said. I was the Dean of Engineering in a north Canadian University. I arranged for a conference on mathematical modeling and chemical engineering. This was maybe fifteen or more years ago. We received one paper from Prof. Mohamed El Naschie and if I remember correctly, it was on the stability of chemical reactors using Rene Thoms catastrophe theory. We also had a contribution from Prof. Said. Believe it or not, he contributed 24 papers to one conference. He had a whole army of co-authors. Almost the entire department of chemical engineering in King Saud University of Saudi Arabia. What can we understand from that? I think one thing Egyptians are extremely peculiar creations of the Almighty. I am not drawing this conclusion from the scientific output of Mohamed and Said alone. Look at the pyramids. Who on earth could put so many stones on top of each other to create a wonder of the world? Taking it at its face value, the Egyptians are marvelous pyramid builders. They could use it as an export article to enhance their collapsing economy once they have solved the transportation problem. Egypt has some of the worst, if not the worst economical problems of whole Africa. I said Africa you notice. You can no longer compare Egypt with its Arab brothers. It is at the bottom. Gone are the days where Egypt could be considered culturally part of the Mediterranean. They are a shadow of their own old self. Amidst all this misery and one of the lowest per capita incomes in the world, you read all these bizarre stories and contrived arguments about who publishes what and how much. If the Egyptians and their friends are evaluating scientific production by numbers of papers, why not go all the way and evaluate it by the number of pages. I have even a better Egyptian idea why not evaluate the Egyptian scientific output by weighing the papers in the bazaar and may the heaviest win! I think in this case the Egyptians will abandon write on papyrus and type their research on heavy leather of Nile buffalos or crocodiles. I am sure you have all felt my contempt by now to this oriental bazaar which the supporters of Mohamed and Said and John Baez and the rest of you have opened here on a respectable scientific site. People are dying in Gaza, Israel, Iraq, Afghanistan and a ravaging economical disaster is looming on the horizon for the entire world and some silly idiots are concerned here mainly with how many papers have been published in this dam Fractals, Solitons & Chaos. Now I am sure you think I am an Israelite. Wrong I am Egyptian and that is why I find the whole thing ranging from tragic to comedy. I hope God will restore the sanity of the people involved.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDuring my years in Cambridge I attended one of those unforgettable lectures by Prof. Sir Arthur Stanly Eddington. In his characteristic prose Eddington gave the following definition for what he nicknamed super mathematics. He said: We need a super mathematics in which the operations are as unknown as the quantities they operate on and a super mathematician who does not know what he is doing when he performs these operations. Such a super mathematics is the theory of groups. Sir Eddingtons lecture was reprinted in the fifties but I forget where. I was reminded of all that after what I read about Mohamed El Naschies work on this and other sites. It seems to me that El Naschie completed what Eddington started but could not bring it to a satisfactory conclusion. El Naschie fused two subjects to a solid unit. First he used causal partially ordered set theory and transfinite groups. Then he joined his sets to the golden mean number system and transfinite dimension theory. The result was a simple computational partially ordered set formalism reminiscent of the original Herman Wyle gauge theory. It would be helpful if we put the polemic and unconstructive rhetoric aside and concentrate upon the mathematical concepts implicit in El Naschies work with the necessary objectivity and seriousness befitting true scientists.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisJ.T., Oxbridge
One of John Baez sock puppets was saying on an obscure sub branch of n category cafe that he cannot fathom why so many people should be citing the work of Prof. Mohamed El Naschie. Here is something which may help you visualize the situation. Why don�t you make a scientific analysis of El Naschie�s theory of transfinite dimension and a serious study of the work of Brauwer instead of all your irrelevant statistics which you are inundating us with. Besides, do you know how to fathom that Dr. Rentate Loll from Utrecht Uniersity obtained 1.2 million euro prize for publishing the work of Nottale, Ord and El Naschie. I should say republishing. It is not difficult to understand. The lady works in an Institute founded by a Nobel laureate. All what you need is a Nobel laureate to recommend you for the prize and that is what happened to her. Is your ability to fathom better now?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBelieve it or not
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEl naschie had four articles whose titles containing Witten. The articles are
1- A few hints and some theorems about Witten's M theory and T-duality,
Chaos,Solitons and Fractals 25 (2005)545 û548
2- Using Witten's five Brane theory and the holographic principle to derive the value of the electromagnetic structure constant alpha =1/137,
Chaos,Solitons and Fractals 38 (2008)1051 -1053
3- Fuzzy knot theory interpretation of Yang -Mills instantons and Witten's 5-Brane model,
Chaos,Solitons and Fractals 38 (2008)1349 -1354
4- On the Witten -Duff Branes model together with knots theory and E 8 E 8 super strings in a single fractal spacetime theory,
Chaos, Solitons and Fractals xxx (2008)xxx - xxx . The article is still in press, but you can get the pdf. file.
The amazing thing about the references of the first three articles is that they don't contain any research paper for Witten. Finally, the great man realized his mistake and put a reference for Witten in the fourth one (the most recent one). But the man didn't acknowledge who pointed out to him this bug in his program which he used to generate papers (Backreaction blog). Any way this a good step, at least the references are now correctly produced. Unfortunately you still need further improvement in your code that seems has a serious problem with E. Witten. Although you referred to a paper of Witten the program has produced a wrong title for it. In the reference list we find
[4 ]Witten E. Searching for a realistic Kaluza-Klein Theory. Nucl Phys B 1981;186:412 - 28.
While the correct title turned out to be, as you can check yourself:
Search for a realistic Kaluza-Klein theory
Nuclear Physics B, Volume 186, Issue 3, 10 August 1981, Pages 412-428, Edward Witten
As N. Eisfeld wrote on Mar. 26, 2008 @ 18:32 GMT, in this blog, http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/395, describing El naschie
"This man has never bad-mouthed, ignored or downplayed anyone or any contribution. He also acknowledged every single person who contributed to his work unless he genuinely did not know and then he will immediately apologize of the unintended omission."
To An alias KK alias Said Elnashaie alias John Brunt alias S. Khalil alias AlArabi alias the Sons of Egypt etc, etc, etc. compliments of the King and I.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt is truly amazing how much triviality people who profess to be scientists can harbor. The above mentioned person has inundated us with dozens of trivial analyses of the literature. It is the same person who hates El Naschie for nothing more than that he hijacked the media for five years. Personal envy and inferiority complexes on the rocks, thick, neither shaken nor stirred. Poor soul. Cant you for once say something important? You are killing yourself searching for anything you can comprehend from the work of El Naschie and all that you can come with is these pathetic statistics of the literature. OK. Let me free you from your illusions, if something of the sort is possible at all.
1. I have seen you and I know Mohamed El Naschie. The reason he hijacked the media is not
connected to his theory nor the width and depth of his knowledge and his intellectuality. It is mainly because of the attractiveness of his personality, stemming from living in harmony with himself. In old age you get the face you deserve and I am afraid a man full of bitterness and hatred like yourself does not and will never have a face appealing to the media. What are you going to do about that? There is no beauty salon or cosmetic surgeon who can change the soul which projects on your face.
2. For a high energy physicist the name Witten as well as his 5-Brane in 11 dimensions is as well known as the name of Isaac Newton. When you write a paper on classical mechanics and mention the name of Newton being synonymous with classical mechanics, you do not give Principia as a reference. There is not a single person who would make such a remark as yours unless he is totally ignorant or blinded by hatred. What El Naschie has forgotten about the literature in high energy physics, a man like you could spend a life time trying to learn and not achieve. Said you have disgraced yourself, disgraced your family and disgraced Egypt. You are becoming a parasite and a fearful virus. We are all afraid of you. But this does not make you respectable. Everybody is afraid of microbes and viruses but that does not make them respectable. I think the best punishment for you is to wish you longevity of life so that you can suffer from your unattractive character as long as possible.
The following comment is a serious comment directed to serious specialized scientists, mathematicians and mathematical physicists such as Edward Witten and Steve Weinberg. I also sincerely hope that Prof. R. Loll will take this comment seriously and discuss it at depth with her distinguished colleagues and superiors. The completely novel aspects in Mohamed El Naschie’s work is his discovery of a Cantorian manifold as the correct model for spacetime. Please take it seriously: Mohamed El Naschie was the first ever to use the notion Cantorian manifold for physics. I hope Mohamed El Naschie is also reading these lines because he thinks he is the first to discover the mathematical notion of Cantorian manifold. El Naschie is wrong on this point. He is the first to use it in theoretical physics and connected to the spacetime of quantum gravity. However the notion Cantorian manifold was invented in pure mathematics almost a hundred years ago. Mathematicians used exactly the same words, namely Cantorian manifold. This manifold is defined exactly by the clash between three different dimensions precisely as given by El Naschie, namely the topological dimension 4, the Hausdorff dimension 4.23606799 and 4 minus 0.1803397. The resulting overall dimension becomes unavoidably statistical and fractal and is equal to 4.019999 almost exactly as found by Renate Loll using computer simulation. It follows then that El Naschie’s work is founded in the general theory of transfinite dimension. Again this is not an invention of El Naschie. The mathematical theory of transfinite dimensions is almost 100 years old and had a relatively humble beginning in the work of Menger as well as Brauwer and Uhryson. I do not believe El Naschie knew that he was rediscovering the work of eminent pure mathematicians. I believe he was led to his discovery by pure engineering intuition and probably later on became aware of the early mathematical work. He may have found it irrelevant to go into historical reappraisal of the subject and was content with referring to the work of Menger as well as the modern work on fractals. The point is theoretical physicists talk a lot about dimensions but do not realize how mathematically sophisticated the notion of dimension is. There is a vast body of literature on the mathematical theory of dimensions and when you study it you will realize that El Naschie’s work hit the nail on its head. He is the first to make the effort of introducing the mathematical theory of dimension and the resulting Cantorian manifold into physics. Some may be forgiven for finding El Naschie’s work difficult to understand because they simply lacked the vital knowledge of the mathematical general theory of transfinite dimensions. But what I find unforgivable is to pervert a scientific debate into a mud slinging, shouting and slandering match. I sincerely hope that away from the convenient prejudice of numerology, serious scientists will look carefully into these comments, research the general theory of dimensions and come back with constructive comments, criticism and suggestions regarding El Naschie’s theory. At the end we can only gain. Look at what is happening in Palestine, Gazza and contrast this with Switzerland where four languages are coexisting in harmony. The difference as expressed eloquently by the great Israeli musician Daniel Barenboim at the 2009 New Year concert in Vienna is the difference between civilization and barbarism.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere is no man as transparent in everything as Mohamed El Naschie. Who else would dare to dedicate a paper on Quarks Confinement modifying the conventional view about asymptotic freedom to Nobel laureate Gerardus tHooft. That is exactly what El Naschie did in his 2008 paper On quarks confinement and asymptotic freedom published in Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, 37 (2008) 1289-1291. Under the title and address it is visibly written for even a blind man to read - Dedicated to Gerardus tHooft. I have seen many papers dedicated to tHooft published in Chaos, Solitons & Fractals including a whole special issue to celebrate Gerardus tHooft's 60th birthday. In fact we in Elsevier sent a dozen or so copies to Dr. Loll who was in charge of the birthday celebration arrangements. When will those blatant liers stop streading lies. It is despicable that some people pretend and totally unconvincingly that they have uncovered anything. El Naschie was the Editor in Chief of Chaos Solitons & Fractals for almost two decades and nobody said a word until it became convenient for some to create a scandal which is not a scandal at all but an absolute sham directed in the first place against Elsevier and will eventually evaporate into nothing.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI had read about Causality before. If Causality exists in quantum space time, if there is indeed a "flow of time", this means that the special relativity concept of time is wrong. This means that special relativity is wrong.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI do not want a deterministic universe, so it is probably good news.
The following comment should dispel any doubt about the scientific integrity and sense of mission which Mohamed El Naschie possesses, in bigger than life measures. It is taken from the Forward of the 1993 book Quantum Mechanics and Chaotic Fractals which he edited together with Nobel laureate Ilya Prigogine and published by Pergamon/Elsevier. The closing paragraph reads:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn conclusion, let us express our hope that the present issue will encourage young scientists to take a fresh look at quantum mechanics even if this is in strong opposition to well-established views. Fear from opposition and taking unpopular new avenues can be quite an obstacle in the face of progress as many notable scientists have repeatedly warned. Luckily there are and will always be eminent scientists who are ready to bear storms of opposition and convey t us a new view which may have escaped attention. De Broglie is a classical example; Bohm and Bell are more recent ones. In fact, we have the feeling that some of the present articles may become the subject of debates, agreements and passionate disagreements for sometime. As far as we are concerned that alone would make the effort more than worthwhile.
A minimum of fairness is required, at least from the scientific community. The man knew exactly what he is doing and his main crime is that he was brave enough to say the truth as he sees it. No man can do more, but do we do that? No, of course not. We do what our superiors ask us to do and we do what brings us funding. In other words we follow the herd.
I found another paper by El Naschie from 2005, so it is not that long ago. The title is tHooft ultimate building blocks and space-time as an infinite dimensional set of transfinite discrete points. This alone proves my point. El Naschie was always seeking dialogue and proper scientific debate. He did not duck or hide. And if this would mean provoking the establishment, so be it. I find El Naschie to be a man for all seasons and we should thank him or at least leave him in peace. The smear campaign against El Naschie has taken criminal forms which is going to invite state prosecution. The one man internet army of John Baez is not fiction. The man is really dangerous and I appeal to all civilized people to do what ever there is in their hands to stop John Baez before he kills somebody. He and his army have done so much harm to so many families that he should be thankful he lives in a country governed by law. In other countries John Baez would dealt with quite differently. But change is coming to America and as Guantanamo prison will be abolished, so too will this internet terrorism.
Keyes
It seems that the great man (El Naschie) is illiterate in physics, you can look at the spires data base for High energy physics literature you will find 124 articles titled with Witten and all of them contain references for Witten]s work except yours that even have strange tiltes. Please look at http://www.slac.stanford.edu/spires/find/hep/www?rawcmd=FIND+T+witten%27s&FORMAT=www&SEQUENCE=
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe works of Witten are not standard or so popular as you think. It is not the same status as classical mechanics which we have since three hundred years and is a well established discipline.
I brought you another surprise , here I just quote from the n-category group, which has been Posted by: Denis-Charles Cisinski on November 11, 2008
��er discovering the existence of this ignored genius through this discussion, I couldn]t resist and had a look at his work (I am so blessed by providence that my library paid Elsevier enough to give me access on line to all of this wonderful journal: Chaos, Solitons & Fractals੮
I had a look by random at three papers, and I felt really lucky: if you have the opportunity to Wread] the following two articles,
El Naschie, On dimensions of Cantor set related system, Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, Vol 3, no. 6 (1993)
and
El naschie, Dimension and Cantor spectra, Chaos Solitons and Fractals, Vol. 4, no. 11 (1994)
you will see that, up to a small bunch of lines, they are exactly the same (I mean word for word). Of course this method of writing is quite efficient to reach the 300]s of published papers. Well, 300 is not that much: the guy is lazy! Or maybe repeating the same thing three hundred times is a pedagogic trick to make sure we, dummy people, understand? Apart from kidding, did someone tried to count how much times he did copy himself so faithfully?
And I have been so lucky that the Wresults] of these Wtwo] papers seem to form the corner stone of WE-infinity theory].
I am just amazed.\
Till here the quotation is ended and just we present a simple explanation. It is well known in producing random numbers by computer codes, the produced numbers are not truly random and are called pseudo random numbers, at the best they satisfy some certain characteristic properties of randomness. If the programs is used for long it could reproduce the same numbers with clearly wrong statistical properties. The same phenomena occurs in producing pseudo science, if you are using a not well tested program for generating papers , the same paper can be produced two times and that was the case for El naschie. Since El naschie is so transparent in everything, he published the same article two times in his own journal, although it was clear that the code he used was broken too early. Who else would dare to publish the same article two times in the same journal. That is exactly what El Naschie did in his 1993 paper On ? dimensions of Cantor set related system, Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, Vol 3, no. 6 (1993)\ and ��ension and Cantor spectra, Chaos Solitons and Fractals, Vol. 4, no. 11 (1994)\.
In fact, this is just a statistical analysis of the El Naschie]s papers that are really chaotic with no contents and superficially seeming complex but trivially could be produced by iterating some few buzz words.
Maybe the great man could provide us with a more interesting explanation.
I agree that Mohamed El Naschie was trying to provoke the establishment into a scientific dialogue. You see that clearly from many of his papers which carry the names of famous scientists in their title. It is as if he is trying to address them directly. Take for instance Penrose universe and Cantorian spacetime as a model for noncommutative quantum geometry. This is a very informative short paper. You do not need to go on dwelling on irrelevant matters unless your intention is defamation rather than information. As for the many papers cited in Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, there are just as many papers published in other journals. Why not look into a paper published in Computer Math. & Appl, Vol. 29,12 (1995), also an Elsevier journal, entitled Statistical geometry of a Cantor discretum and semiconductors. You see it is not only Chaos, Solitons & Fractals which accepted his papers. There are many, many other well established international journals which published El Naschies work. Why do you want to gloss over these facts? I can give you many other journals where I have seen the fundamental ideas of El Naschies E-infinity theory discussed in the same characteristic way, unique to his science. El Naschie moves sovereignly between number theory, experimental data and theoretical concepts connecting all three together in a unique fabric. It is not usual for theoretical physicists to work in this way. However in nonlinear dynamics so called numerical experiments are on the daily order of researchers. At the beginning of American science they mix experiment and theory as well as computer calculations in a characteristic way which was not known at this time in Europe. Now this American way is the usual way of doing science all over the world, rather than the exception. I could imagine that Mohamed El Naschies way of bringing all conceivable tools including number theory and numerical simulation to bear on a problem until it yields a solution might become sometime in the future the new way of doing science. John Baez is puzzled by Mohamed El Naschies papers on E8. He simply does not understand that there are ten exceptional groups rather than only five and that there are eight groups of the E line. He does not understand how El Naschie adds all the dimensions together. The reason is very simple. John Baez does not understand the concept of average symmetry. The concept is well known in nonlinear dynamics. Rather than slandering El Naschie, John Baez and his friends should start with something easy which they can grasp. I advise them to read El Naschies paper in the European Journal of Physics. In 1994 this journals name was Il Nuovo Cimento. It is the journal where the work of Einstein and Fermi was published. The paper was entitled Average symmetry, stability and ergodicity of multidimensional Cantor sets, Vol. 109 B, N.2, Feb. 1994. Is this journal also run by idiots who do not know what they are doing? OK. Here is another one dealing with statistical mechanics and Cantor sets in physics. The paper of El Naschie published in SAMS was entitled On universal behavior and statistical mechanics of multi-dimensional Triadic Cantor sets, Vol. 11, p. 217, 1993. You need another example? Here is one of the fundamental papers of El Naschie published in a journal for astronomy and astrophysics. Vistas in Astronomy, paper entitled Quantum mechanics, Cantorian space-time and the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, Vol. 37, p. 249, 1993. And to show that El Naschies work makes a great deal of mathematical sense you may look at a beautiful theorem which he proved in a pure mathematical journal called Appl. Math. Lett. The paper is entitled Orbits stability and dimensional criticality of Cantor sets, Vol. 7, No. 2, p. 91, 1994. When will John Baez and the like of him of mediocre mathematical physicists realize that not everything they cannot understand is wrong. In addition people who are so engaged in internet chat rooms do not have the time to read in depth anything. The establishment has two ways of dealing with somebody like El Naschie. The first way is to ignore him. When this does not work, then they try to laugh him out of court. They tried both ways with Einstein. The same was applied to David Bohm. A more recent example is Mitchell Feigenbaum and chaos theory. All these methods did not work with El Naschie. In addition the priority dispute which broke after the publication of the work of Renate Loll which is the subject of this site, necessitates a far harsher method. Now they are character assassinating Mohamed El Naschie and if he does not yield, maybe they will yield to physical liquidation of him, who knows. They are putting unprecedented effort, finance and man power into discrediting El Naschie once and for all time. They tried the same with Einstein but somehow the truth will always prevail. People think that Einsteins theory was accepted immediately. Nothing is further from the truth. In all events, and I say it out of my own heart, shame on you John Baez and shame on all those who are helping him in this infamous job of smearing a respectable man.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI am not surprised when I hear about the controversy surrounding this article. Some commenters say Renate Loll did not cite the work of Nottale, Ord and El Naschie. But Dr. Renate Loll works with a Nobel laureate. Surely she is above all suspicion? If in doubt read what is written in the Times (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article5367941.ece) and in Forbes.com (http://www.forbes.com/markets/2008/12/21/nobel-prize-controvery-face-markets-cx_je_1219autofacescan02.html).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe objections on the works of El naschie don't stem from his
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisclaimed prolific character, but relies on the quality of his works that
tends to be very poor. El naschie is using the idea of fractal
geometry and non linear dynamics in a very vague way, in this vague
way of reasoning and thinking you can claim to have proved any thing. Even it is
very decent to say that his works are wrong, they are not even
wrong ( as Pauli once evaluated one's work!)
Here I just give examples for two great scientists that happened to
be extreme examples of prolificity.
The first one is Leonhard Euler, who was by far the most productive
mathematician in the history of humankind and one of the greatest scholars of
all time. His collected works filled 70 volumes, with a typical volume
runs to 500 large pages and weighs about four pounds. Publishing
Euler's collected works started in 1911 under the title Opera Omina
and is not yet finished.
Series I Opera mathematica
(In 29 volumes; 30 volume-parts)
Available complete
Series II Opera mechanica et astronomica
(In 31 volumes; 32 volume-parts)
Series III Opera physica, Miscellanea
(In 12 volumes)
Series IV A. Commercium epistolicum
(10 Volumes)
for more details you can see the following links
http://www.leonhard-euler.ch
http://www.springer.com/birkhauser/historyofscience?SGWID=0-40295-2-121672-0
The second example is Peter Higss who is the inventor of Higgs
mechanism to which the Higgs particle is related. Peter Higss published only 12
articles in his life career, please see
http://www.slac.stanford.edu/spires/find/hep/www?rawcmd=a+Higgs,+Peter
You will also find 8000 papers containing Higgs in their titles. Please
see
http://www.slac.stanford.edu/spires/find/hep/www?rawcmd=find+title+higgs&FORMAT=WWW&SEQUENCE=
I doubt if the work of El naschie could fill one volume. The great
man is concentrating on ideas, so his papers are typically short.
Nor you can find a single good paper in his entire works.
Nevertheless, El naschie succeeded to have people trumpeting the
virtue of his great theory and writing articles containing his name in
their titles and out of contexts but exclusively published on his own journal. Here I give
few examples for an author called M. Agop who is trumpeting the virtue E-Infinity
theory, he has almost thirty nine articles containing in their
titles El naschie.
1- El Naschies E-infinity theory and effects of nanoparticle clustering on the heat transport in
nanofluids
Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, Volume 37, Issue 5, September 2008, Pages 1269-1278
M. Agop, V. Paun, Anca Harabagiu
Abstract:
Effects of nanoparticle clustering on the heat transfer in nanofluids
using the scale relativity theory in the topological dimension DT = 3 are analyzed.
In the one-dimensional differentiable case, the clustering morphogenesis process is achieved
by cnoidal oscillation modes of the speed field. In such conjecture, a non-autonomous regime
implies a relation between the radius and growth speed of the cluster while, a quasi-autonomous
regime requires El Naschies E-infinity theory through the clustercluster coherence
(El Naschie global coherence). Moreover, these two regimes are separated by the golden mean.
In the one-dimensional non-differentiable case, the fractal kink spontaneously breaks
the vacuum symmetry of the fluid by tunneling and generates coherent structures.
This mechanism is similar to the one of superconductivity. Thus, the fractal potential
acts as an energy accumulator while, the fractal soliton, implies El Naschies E-infinity theory
(El Naschie local coherence). Since all the properties of the speed field are transferred
to the thermal one, for a certain conditions of an external load (e.g. for a certain value
of thermal gradient) the soliton and fractal one breaks down (blows up) and release energy.
As result, the thermal conductibility in nanofluids unexpectedly increases.
Here, El Naschies E-infinity theory interferes through El Naschie global and local coherences.
2- El Naschies structures in the electrodynamics of polarizable media
Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, Volume 24, Issue 5, June 2005, Pages 1165-1181
M. Agop, I. Merches, V. Enache
Abstract:
Using the concept of combined field, an electrodynamics of polarizable media on a fractal
spacetime is constructed. In this context, using the scale relativity theory, the permanent
electric moment, the induced electric moment, the vacuum fluctuations, the paraelectrics,
the diaelectrics, the electric Zeeman-type effect, the electric Einsteinde Haas-type effect,
the electric AharonovBohm-type effect, the superconductors in the combined field, the double
layers as coherent structures, the magnetic AharonovCasher-type effect, are analyzed.
Correspondence with the E-infinity spacetime is accomplished either by admitting an
anomal electric Zeeman-type effect, or through a fractal string as in the case of a
superconductor incombined field, or, by phase coherence of the electronion pairs from
the electric double layers (El Naschies coherence). Moreover, the electric double layer or
multiple layer may be considered as two-dimensional projections of the same El Naschies fractal
strings (higher-dimensional strings in E-infinty spacetime).
Please the reader should be careful about the new concept of El Naschie global and local
coherences and the ability of E-infinity for explaining every
thing you can imagine. I advice every readers to give a look at
this author Agop
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleListURL&_method=list&_ArticleListID=854751840&
view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=57e20c10dbdce6aebbbc81f36416a702
His articles are really endless kind of joy and great virtue of entertaining as the articles
of El naschie himself. Elseiver could distribute these articles as jokes and I bet that they
would be more profitable than distributing them as scientific papers.
I
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisProf. An I am sorry you are parading your ignorance. You couldn’t possibly be a mathematician or a physicist or you will not mention Euler and Higgs in the same breath. If you would be a physicist, you would know that Peter Higgs is an average physicist. He is not the one who proposed the Higgs particle. There were two other scientists before him. This is well known. Instead of being an internet clochard, you should learn your stuff before spreading ignorance. To say El Naschie’s use of fractals is vague is in itself an extremely vague statement. You obviously know nothing about fractals or cantor sets. How could you know that El Naschie’s use of fractals, although he doesn’t use fractals, is vague and is it not the fog in your brain caused by your hatred which make it appear to you as vague.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI read a few of your comments and I think I can diagnose your malady: The hatred in your heart and the jealousy in your soul are causing blood steam to obscure your thinking. You are trying to give the impression of someone who knows anything about physics but all what you are doing is copying statements from papers you don’t understand and trying to make a joke but the joke is really this time on you. Take the advice of other people on this site and find yourself a life and leave us in peace.
Anwar Fakhruelddin
Prof. An I am sorry you are parading your ignorance. You couldn’t possibly be a mathematician or a physicist or you will not mention Euler and Higgs in the same breath. If you would be a physicist, you would know that Peter Higgs is an average physicist. He is not the one who proposed the Higgs particle. There were two other scientists before him. This is well known. Instead of being an internet clochard, you should learn your stuff before spreading ignorance. To say El Naschie’s use of fractals is vague is in itself an extremely vague statement. You obviously know nothing about fractals or cantor sets. How could you know that El Naschie’s use of fractals, although he doesn’t use fractals, is vague and is it not the fog in your brain caused by your hatred which make it appear to you as vague.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI read a few of your comments and I think I can diagnose your malady: The hatred in your heart and the jealousy in your soul are causing blood steam to obscure your thinking. You are trying to give the impression of someone who knows anything about physics but all what you are doing is copying statements from papers you don’t understand and trying to make a joke but the joke is really this time on you. Take the advice of other people on this site and find yourself a life and leave us in peace.
Anwar Fakhruelddin
This is not Prof. An. This is nothing but the schizicophrenic Said Elnashaie and his sock puppets. A respectable scientist who wants to prove that a theory is wrong, writes a paper proving that a theory is wrong and sends it to a journal to be published. The wrangling on the internet is the finger print of the scientifically impotent and the mentally incompetent.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOh, Great man (El naschice); of course Peter Higss is
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisan average physicist compared to you. Even, you can convince
yourself by the following:
1- Higgs won wolf prize in physics 2004 and Dirac medal
in physics 1997,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_W._Higgs.
But, you have won a lot of prizes, and your beautiful photo
standing behind such a bunch of prizes which one can have a look at
in your photo gallery that you published in a special issue of Chaos,
Solitons and Fractals 25 (2005), 915933. For the sake of joy, one
can find a copy
http://www.el-naschie.net/bilder/file/Photo-Gallery.pdf
2- Higss works in University of Edinburgh.
But, you have worked in Cambridge from 1993-2001.
By the way you, why you don't mention this on your website
or you forget to do it.
3- Higgs has a very limited research interest.
But you are interested in every thing, even in Nano-technology.
You have claimed to be the director of King Abdullah Al Saud
Institute for Nano and Advanced Technologies.
http://agenda.fisica.uniud.it/difa/getFile.py/access?contribId=
52&sessionId=32&resId=0&materialId=slides&confId=9
But if one checks the webpage of King Abdullah Al Saud Institute
for Nano and Advanced Technologies finds no mention for you at all
One can check the web page for Committees consultative scientists
http://www.nano-ksu.com/publish/article_46.shtml
web page for Supervisory Committee to King Abdullah Institute
for Nanotechnology
http://www.nano-ksu.com/publish/article_63.shtml
Why doesn't this position appear in the list of the prestigious
positions listed in your website? .
Regarding your nice picture in your website showing you signing contract
with king saud university,riyadh - saudi arabia.
http://www.el-naschie.net/el-naschie-physicist.asp?site=260&lang=
It is clear that you managed to deceive people in Egypt and
Saudi arabia. But why don't you tell us how finally, in saudi arabia,
they discovered that you are a fraud and kicked you out?. I think
it is an interesting story and worthy to be told in your website.
You may know that Freeman J. Dyson
Gerard 't Hooft, Victor F. Weisskopf, Roger Penrose,
Stephen W. Hawking, Yoichiro Nambu and John Archibald Wheeler
all won wolf prize. do you consider them as average physicists?.
For the invention of Higss particle there many scientist
contributed to the theoretical works namely are F. Englert,
R. Brout, P. Higgs, G. S. Guralnik, C. R. Hagen, and
T. W. B. Kibble. But the particle was named after Higss.
For the sake of entertaining, we present another article for this
miraculous author M. Agop trumpeting the virtue of the great
El-naschie's E-infinity theory.
Ball lightning as a self-organizing process of a plasmaplasma interface and El Naschies
E-infinity spacetime
Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, Volume 33, Issue 3, August 2007, Pages 754-769
M. Agop, C. Murgulet
Abstract:
In the fractal spacetime theories, some properties of a ball lightning (BL)
are established: the oscillation regimes, the hysteresis, the distributions
of the potential, field and charge etc. In such a context, the FeynmanEl Naschie
hypothesis on the universality of the dipoledipole interaction is confirmed and
a connection between El Naschies E-infinity spacetime and FeigenbaumGoldfain
conjecture is given.
In this enlightening article, one finds the name of the great man El naschie
associated with Feynman, which remembers us for the association of Bose and
Einstein. Can the great man tell us what is Feynman-El naschie
hypothesis.!!!!, and if you use fractal space time or not or he
does not use fractals at all. By the way, Feynman had only 35
published papers, do you consider him as an average physicist.
Feynman's prolificity can not match yours.
http://www.slac.stanford.edu/spires/find/hep/www?rawcmd=FIND+A+FEYNMAN&FORMAT=
wwwcitesummary&SEQUENCE=
Finally your miraculous and ridiculous articles and even those based on
them are not even wrong, they are non sense. No respectable journal will
ever accept a paper discussing your theory.
I am shocked to see this, but there seems to be a system: the current issue of American Scientific explains nanotchnology: Nanomedicine--Revolutionizing the Fight against Cancer. And there is no reference to the groundbreaking contributions of El Naschie either! This must be part of the hidden agenda to rob El Naschie's life time work. It's sad indeed.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe rage and hatred of the language of An who is so courageous when he is hiding behind two letter words and a computer speaks volumes. Truly a Chribishop. Could be listed on the menu of an n-Category Caf�. In all events it is better than the coffee served in Egyptian prisons. You are not worth even these words.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisProf. An in his different guises. Since you are such a clever boy how come you can spend so much time lounging around in the internet? I guess it is public service. Would it also not be a public service to give us your real name, address and telephone number so that the public at large could have the benefit of such a super brain.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCould I take the liberty of asking Prof. An and his Middle Eastern colleagues to take their indulgence and oriental petit bourgeois quarrels somewhere else. Clearly you have not learnt to disagree in a civilized manner. No wonder the Middle East is the shambles that we see. Thank you for understanding that your presence here is not desired.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThank you Alastair. You took the words out of my mouth. Coming back to our subject, there seems to be a common thread on all recent non main stream theories for quantum gravity. This common thread is fractals. However I am slightly confused and would be grateful for any form of clarification. Unless you decide on a compact and closed kind of spacetime universe, you will have all sorts of problems with a fractal spacetime. As far as I understood the work of Mohamed El Naschie, when you go as far as the ultimate energy, say the Planck energy, then the world will be simplest again. In other words the fractal joins the classical in a T-duality like manner. However Renate Loll and those working in a similar direction claim that at the Planck energy, the world changes to two dimensions instead of four and that is where it becomes fractal. This seems to me to be the opposite of what El Naschie requires based on duality. There is another difficulty with the Loll interpretation. When you reach fractal-like resolution, your dimensions definitely increase, not decrease. I think El Naschie’s approach is more consistent with the pure mathematical literature on the subject. As a mathematician I believe more in the mathematical conception of infinite dimensional topology. This branch of mathematics is highly developed but physicists seem to know next to nothing about the subject. El Naschie gave in his work some indication that he is familiar with the work of Menger and Uhrysohn. For this reason I think El Naschie may be right. You cannot have a closed universe without introducing a hierarchy. To make myself clearer, I would need to write some formulas. This is unfortunately not possible here.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThank you Alastair. You took the words out of my mouth. Coming back to our subject, there seems to be a common thread on all recent non main stream theories for quantum gravity. This common thread is fractals. However I am slightly confused and would be grateful for any form of clarification. Unless you decide on a compact and closed kind of spacetime universe, you will have all sorts of problems with a fractal spacetime. As far as I understood the work of Mohamed El Naschie, when you go as far as the ultimate energy, say the Planck energy, then the world will be simplest again. In other words the fractal joins the classical in a T-duality like manner. However Renate Loll and those working in a similar direction claim that at the Planck energy, the world changes to two dimensions instead of four and that is where it becomes fractal. This seems to me to be the opposite of what El Naschie requires based on duality. There is another difficulty with the Loll interpretation. When you reach fractal-like resolution, your dimensions definitely increase, not decrease. I think El Naschies approach is more consistent with the pure mathematical literature on the subject. As a mathematician I believe more in the mathematical conception of infinite dimensional topology. This branch of mathematics is highly developed but physicists seem to know next to nothing about the subject. El Naschie gave in his work some indication that he is familiar with the work of Menger and Uhrysohn. For this reason I think El Naschie may be right. You cannot have a closed universe without introducing a hierarchy. To make myself clearer, I would need to write some formulas. This is unfortunately not possible here.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt seems that our El Naschie is making a monologue with himself..without being aware he used the same nickname (Alastair) twice but in one of them he thanked himself! ....funny
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI do not fully agree that fractality is the most important aspect in the work of Loll and El Naschie. Of course it is a common thread in causal dynamical triangulation as well as the theory of Reuter. El Naschie seems to come from Wheelers vacuum fluctuation. This is clear from the picture colored by his two daughters in his book co-authored by Nobel laureate Ilya Prigogine. Consequently El Naschie combined spacetime and matter in one entity. It is pre-geometry mixed with fractals in a subtle way. In a sense he made pre-geometry out of Cantor sets. You will recall that Wheeler made this proposal for the first time many years ago but suggesting Borel sets. It is amazing that a civil engineer was so sensitive to abstract pure mathematics and converted the Borel set proposal to random Cantor sets and used the dimensional theory of Menger and Uhrysohn. The connection to possets, that is to say partially ordered sets and the work of Fay Dowker, Stanley Gudder and Hemion becomes obvious. This is the correct way to interpret El Naschies work. The most important trick was finding a numerical indexing which enabled him to do computation without a computer. It is an ingenious validation of the Loll model which led to 4.02 as an effective dimension of the emerging spacetime. The value found by El Naschie as well as Crnjac and Elokaby was 4.019999. It was found using Weyl scaling. The Weyl scaling is the original gauge theory as is well known. It is when we think in this rational way that we will come to the conclusion that a conflict might signal an opportunity.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSaid,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSaid, you can call yourself Dor and you can call yourself John Brandt. We will always know it is Said Elnashaie. You can bring Lord Byron or Ezra Pound to write on your behalf. We still recognize it is you because of your smell. Your odor Said as well as your demeanor and character have become unbearable. How could you have changed so much in the last twenty years? You have become slimy and a coward and an internet thug. If not, write your own name and give your address and credentials including the Certificate of your Conviction. This is the last warning to leave the site and after that you are to blame yourself for what will happen.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDear El Naschie, believe it or not, I have nothing to do with your brother Said...but I am sure of one thing: You are a mentally sick person..it is really meaningless to spend even a little of my time to exchange comments with you. But as last words: You must accept the reality now, you have been asked to retire from being an editor in chief of CFS journal, you have been kicked out from KACST and KAINT in SA, your reality has been uncovered, your suspicious roads have been cut-off , you are bleeding..I think it would be better for your health (at this late age) that you stop writing those monologues where you self-discuss your crap, pretending to be different persons. It is really amazing how a person can arrive to this point of madness..May god help you .
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBeing an internet master of scandalizing and defaming people John Baez the infamous made as much noise as he can make of a harmless photo gallery included in a Special Issue of Chaos, Solitons & Fractals dedicated to the 60th birthday of Prof. Mohamed El Naschie. Of course it would have been too much for him to bother to read the notes of the Editor, Prof. Garnet Ord on the third page of the volume. It states the following: This issue was assembled and produced without the knowledge of its Editor in Chief. It was constructed at very short notice because nobody guessed ahead of time that Professor El Naschie was anywhere near his sixtieth birthday. The articles are cross-disciplinary and range from playful exercises to serious descriptions of emerging work. I think this is in accord with the combination of humor and intensity that characterized the work of our Chief Editor. We hope you enjoy them. Only people who do not understand the word shame could write the stuff which I have seen in some comments on this site. Who is this Mr. or Mrs. Dor writing on 1/25/09 and 1/26/09? What is all this talk about bleeding, hanging and killing? Is this Scientific American blog or Dr. Frankensteins museum? What kind of sick people are hiding inside some so called scientists? I am truly appalled by all of that, whether it is Renate Loll who does not acknowledge the sources of her work or those vampires lusting for bloodletting. It is truly revolting and it would be a good thing that Scientific American put some more stringent standards to the comments appearing on their site. It is alright to criticize scientific ideas in any form one chooses to, as long as you use civilized language. However these personal attacks and malignant fantasies should not appear in printed form in a site belonging to Scientific American.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisto
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTo Loll, Amjbjorn and Jurkiewicz: I did not know that you need money that badly. If so why wait until Mohamed El Naschie commits suicide because he will not. Why not help it a little. Come on guys. You are an inventive lot. Arrange for his physical liquidation. That can’t be beyond you. From all what I have seen from your photographs you have far more reason to be unhappy with your existence. Mohamed El Naschie does science for fun. By contrast you have to beg, steal and borrow to buy things. Remember the New Seekers. From your pictures you look more like the Old Seekers, particularly the charming picture of Loll besides Wheeler’s foam. Boy, I’d rather marry the foam!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSehr geehrte Frau Dr. Renate Loll,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisich habe Ihre Kommentare über Prof. El Naschie mit größtem Bedauern gelesen. Ihren Wunsch dass er sich das Leben nimmt ist erschreckend und unter der Gürtellinie. Ich habe jede Achtung für Sie verloren. Ich schäme mich, dass eine deutsche Frau so eine schwarze Seele haben kann. Außerdem haben Sie kein Respekt für den tragischen Tod von Ludwig Boltzmann gezeigt. So etwas liest man in Hexengeschichten aber doch nicht von einer renommierten und eigentlich respektablen Wissenschaftler in wie Sie. Was würden Sie denken wenn Ihre Kinder so etwas über Sie lesen werden? Hoffentlich müssen Sie das nicht erleben. Das wünsche ich weder Feind noch Freund.
Hochachtungsvoll
Carol Winter, Canada
Sehr geehrte Frau Dr. Renate Loll,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisich habe Ihre Kommentare über Prof. El Naschie mit größtem Bedauern gelesen. Ihren Wunsch dass er sich das Leben nimmt ist erschreckend und unter der Gürtellinie. Ich habe jede Achtung für Sie verloren. Ich schäme mich, dass eine deutsche Frau so eine schwarze Seele haben kann. Außerdem haben Sie kein Respekt für den tragischen Tod von Ludwig Boltzmann gezeigt. So etwas liest man in Hexengeschichten aber doch nicht von einer renommierten und eigentlich respektablen Wissenschaftler in wie Sie. Was würden Sie denken wenn Ihre Kinder so etwas über Sie lesen werden? Hoffentlich müssen Sie das nicht erleben. Das wünsche ich weder Feind noch Freund.
Hochachtungsvoll
Carol Winter, Canada
Dear Prof. Ambjorn,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThank you for the entertaining comment signed by pseudo name dor. A lot of people think it is extremely cruel and lower than black humor but I am an odd man out. Never the less I must correct you and no offense, Boltzmann is not buried in Italy. With respect he is buried in Vienna. He is surrounded by people who will not mean much to the internet crowd like yourself. Beside him lies Mozart, Schubert and many similarly obscure personalities. Please forgive me that I liked your first little book with the beautiful drawings which indicated to me that you are an artistically inclined person. Now I stand corrected. By the way, you may ask how I knew it was you. Easy. It is the entropic production of hair. You have an enormous entropic production of hair but miserably distributed like in old capitalism. They are all concentrated in your face, leaving your head almost bare. What a gross injustice. Otherwise you could have made a pretty sight. Let us hope your wish comes true and you will be alive to join the funeral of Mohamed El Naschie. Judging from the hair entropy, I am inclined to think it will be the other way around.
Best wishes,
a
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere is a very simple to test to know who is phony and who is real. If you are real, give your real name and address and make yourself visible. Signing An just to implicate Prof. Ali Nayfeh is of course one of those phony tricks. Ali Nayfeh is a Palestinian and a member of Hamas. He could be anything but he is not a coward. Those who sign as dor or Alshistawi or what have you are cowards and therefore, phony. So if you want to show yourself to be real and so brave to defame innocent people, then sign with your name. Why are you so worried that Mohamed El Naschie is making monologues with himself as you say? If he is mad, why do you waste your time on a mad person? Using the above rule, it is clear you are not only phony but you are thieves and you do not want the truth to come out. More shockingly, you are now calling for the demise of Mohamed El Naschie. How much of a threat does this Egyptian, civil engineer constitute for you to indirectly
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thiscall for assassination? You did your job with character assassination but now you are entering an area which could change the rules of the game to that of Kandahar and Bagdad. If I were you, especially Prof. Ambjorn from the Niels Bor Inst. who is so versed in the history of Ludwig Boltzmann, I would not count on Mohamed El Naschie committing suicide. However some might get the wrong idea. Someone who grew up in the Middle East with its chequered history might interpret a Viennese waltz wrongly. Prof. Ambjorn he might take your ideas but correct its logic. I think you are all playing with fire but since you are phony, you think everyone is like you. You are making a gross error of judgment and when you discover it, it will be too late.
At last, El naschie acquired the fame that he has dreamed of.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNow he is internationally recognized by his unique
character as a fraud in science. Now in many languages
his scandal is reported and in many respectable journals.
1- As you can find the article of nature:
Self-publishing editor set to retire
Published online 26 November 2008
http://www.nature.com/news/2008/081126/full/456432a.html
"The editor of a theoretical-physics journal, who was facing
growing criticism that he used its pages to publish numerous
papers written by himself, is set to retire early next year....."
2- Article in German language published in DIE ZEIT
whose title is "Betrug in der Wissenschaft" and the
English translation is ( Fraud in science)
http://www.zeit.de/2009/03/N-El-Naschie?page=1
You will find a beautiful carton for El naschie
in this article.
It would be better if the great man links these two articles
in his website, since these two articles are really about him.
In fact, for the German article, the great man doesn't give up
and struggling with his sockpuppet army to convince people
with the conspiracy against him and his achievements.
Why we are interested in the case of El naschie, here are some
answer taken from
http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08%2F12%2F23%2F1831225&from=rss
by tsstahl (812393) on Tuesday December 23, @04:31PM (#26216319)
In the immortal words of Tom Hanks, I don't get it.
If the guy is a well known crackpot, what harm is happening? Obviously,
I am not a citizen of this sub-world and could use the enlightenment.
Re:I don't get it.
by Daniel Dvorkin (106857) * on Tuesday December 23, @04:37PM
The harm, I think, is that he's not a well-enough-known crackpot;
a respectable publisher (Elsevier) has given him a journal as his
own private playground. This makes it more difficult for non-crackpots
trying to enter the field (e.g. grad students) to sort the wheat
from the chaff. It also allows other crackpots to come off as more credible
by citing crackpot articles which have a veneer of respectability.
Imagine if a computer science "journal" based on Hollywood's portrayal
of how computers work were being published by the ACM, and you have some
idea of how big a problem this is.
by ocean_soul (1019086) <tobias@verhulst.ua@ac@be> on Tuesday December 23,
In fact, the crackpotness of El Nachies' papers is obvious even to most
grad students (you should read some, they are in fact rather funny).
The bigger problem is that, by repeatedly citing his own articles,
his journal gets a high impact factor. People who have absolutely no
clue about math, like the ones who decide on the funding, conclude from
the high impact factor that the papers in this journal must be of high quality.
by dujenwook (834549) on Tuesday December 23, @05:16PM
Yea, I read through a bit of the cited paper and got a few good
laughs out of it. Maybe he's being published more for the humorous
aspect of it all than for the actual information.
At the end, It would be good and fair if scientific American
devotes an article about El naschie and his unique character
as a fraud.
I am sure everybody would welcome Scientific American running a story on this story. There are also other stories inside this story, almost like a fractal.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWe understand from all the news coming from Stockholm that three of the five people on the Nobel Committee are being investigated for bribery. If you can investigate the Nobel committee, then surely we can investigate commercial scientific publishing including Scientific American, Nature and Die Zeit. I would be thrilled to know what is behind all this and be it at a minimum to demystify science, famous professors and those bigger than life Nobel laureates.
S
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSaid, all of Egypt knows you are a thief. All of Egypt knows the real story. All of Egypt, except the thieves, knows how kind Mohamed is and in all your miserable mad existence nobody was kinder to you than him. I always warned him against you because I knew how evil you are. You did harm Mohamed for sure. The day he shook hands with you was a bad day for him. You have my word, he will recover from all this filth you have been spreading around him and for sure you have made his theory more famous than it was and that you will regret it as well. Mohamed never needed to kiss the hand of the Director of a private University in the Middle East to get employed but you do so everyday and with increasing frequency. You will hear them tell you that it is not your research record or the fact you have never really found anything of value in science or otherwise but it is your character - A man who steals his own mother and breaks her heart and lets her die
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thispenniless is a not a human being and we employ normal human beings. So rest assured that your co-criminals will be the ones who will first denounce you in the court of justice. It is only a matter of weeks and what you have done will backfire at you and the cheap journalist you have bribed with the money you have stolen from your mother.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisJohn Baez: Bad news. The fraud squad is closing in. They are busy right now in Davos. But your ingenuity has drawn their attention. Why aren’t you signing with your name lately? Nobody doubts your ability to get out of the fine mess which Stanley got you into.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this“Said, how about signing with your own name. You are a big guy. Show the world you are really a man. You can be impotent and you can be incompetent but still you can pretend to be a man”.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI have a present to the readers of Scientific American -- A belated Christmas gift. Please log in to Renate Loll’s website to see her in all of her glory holding Einstein in the palm of her hand. It reminds me of the great poem by William Blake, only upside down.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisz
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisJohn Baez,the fraudster: Nobody ever doubted your ability to raise an army of internet hooligans or with one telephone call you get the scum of all science journalists and all unemployed science journalists as well to dance to your whistle. The unfortunate old diploma mathematician of Die Zeit is one of them. You have to find a way to rescue him because he is facing imprisonment and we promise you as soon as this is done, we will have all the time in the world for Riverside, California. All these little tricks of yours will come to haunt you. But then: “Scum of the world unite, you have nothing to lose except your chains”. Was that Said Elnashaie or Karl Marx?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou all know the phrase jumping from the sinking ship please ascertain for yourselves that the rats who have been defaming Mohamed El Naschie, the Egyptian engineer and scientist are hiding. Search for the n-Category Caf� which was publishing all the fraudulent assertions against Mohamed El Naschie. It has now changed identity like a chameleon, I should say like a snake. They changed the name to Friendfeed by one of those who answer to the name Michael Nielsen and soon enough, when Schiermeier the journalist of Nature is convicted in German and British courts, then John Baez will pretend he never said a word against Mohamed El Naschie. The fraud squad however is capable of proving everything from scratch. John Baez will have to get rid of his computer and every computer he used to spread the lies for which he was commissioned. And Dr. John Baez what are you going to do about the copies? Will you will swear an affidavit that you never ever wrote anything of the sort and that the whole thing is a conspiracy planned and executed by all the people you have defamed over so many years. I think your maternal Grandmother must have told you John, you can fool some of the people some of the time but you cant fool all of the people all of the time. I have myself a Mediterranean temperament, not very different from the Mexican temperament of some of your ancestors. I tell you, it does not help when you are in a situation similar to the one in which you are. You have to keep a cool head. You have made a colossal mistake and again, as a man of a similar background, I swear to you there is no way out except the truth. Say you were mistaken. Say that Said or Renate Loll mislead you and we will all forgive you, be it because you were a reasonably good mathematician. But if you insist on the lies you have created on the internet, we will never ever give up before seeing you behind bars.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI admit to being a victim of my own curiosity most, if not all of the time. This site talks almost exclusively about Mohamed El Naschie. The attributes range from a genius to a crackpot. I hate all these superlatives. I am sure he is neither. I am almost sure that the commenter’s are crackpots. I say that at the risk of referring to myself being a member of the set. All the same I looked at a most interesting and informative paper by Mohamed El Naschie called The concepts of E Infinity: An elementary introduction to the Cantorian-fractal theory of quantum physics, Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, 22 (2004), pp. 495. Paragraph 9 on page 507/508 caught my attention. The paragraph is entitled ‘What is a particle?’ After reading this paragraph which does not contain a single mathematical formula or equation, I had the feeling that I acquired at least a better grasp of the problem which most would have thought was self evident. The next day I was accosted by a paper published in Classical & Quantum Gravity, Vol. 26, No. 2, 21 Jan, 2009 which just appeared. The title of the paper is nothing else but ‘What is a particle?’ The authors are Daniele Colosi and Carlo Rovelli. Carlo is a marvelous scientist and well known to me. He is one of the main founders of loop quantum gravity, incidentally a subject in which Renate Loll worked for many years. However I must say Carlo’s paper is full of mystifying mathematics and is 22 pages long. This is exactly the number of pages of all the five papers which El Naschie published in the last issue of Chaos, Solitons & Fractals about which so many people have written so many pages. Of course no sane person would measure in good faith the quality or lack of it of a scientific paper by the number of pages. Never the less, and will due respect to Carlo and his co-author, I found the two pages written by Mohamed El Naschie under the title ‘What is a particle?’ far more illuminating. Having reached this conclusion I decided to know more about the man than the hearsay printed superciliously on this site. I can recommend this article taken from the horse’s mouth so to speak A tale of two Kleins unified in strings and E-infinity theory. Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, Vol. 26 (2005), pp. 247. The rest is self evident.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNorbert D. H.
Dr. Renate Loll playing with Einstein. Nobody knows if other Nobel laureates were watching. http://www.phys.uu.nl/~loll/Web/title/title.htm.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI don`t want to be paranoid but even on the risk of that, isn’t it true that the holding company of Scientific American, Nature and Die Zeit is the same holding company? What if this company has conspired in one way or another against Mohamed El Naschie? You say this is impossible? Didn`t they say the same about Nixon and Watergate? What if a small journalist was bribed or bullied or tempted to write something in Nature and then found himself in trouble. To divert attention and find allies he contacted another obscure journalist in Die Zeit. And since when do we take the opinion of journalists for granted on scientific issues? I find all these questions very disturbing and I think they should be investigated by the authorities. There is something very weird about the behavior of the Editorial Board of all the involved periodicals. In particular Die Zeit is a weekly newspaper and I understand that the journalist involved is already under indictment in the Court in Germany. If you read German and if you read the comments, you will start wondering. In particular that Die Zeit has closed the comments on its on-line article. I have nothing against John Baez. I heard he is a reasonably good mathematician but the lynching justice of the internet is something which none of us could find normal or acceptable.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisManfred
John Baez has made a great deal of fun of what is basically not funny at all. He said in one of his rather coarse lines that his favorite picture is that of Prof. Mohamed El Naschie sitting amidst his medals and grinning. I find charity starts at home. Have anyone of you seen the homepage of Renate Loll? Have you ever seen her picture there standing tall holding a little Einstein in the palm of her hand? The big lady and the little man, or is that her private mascot? Quite honestly this particular picture of Dr. Renate Loll reminds me of one of the Witches of Eastwick. Then she writes papers with James Bond slogans. Quantum gravity, shaken not stirred. Does she intend to become a Bond girl? For the 1.5 million Euros she won by snatching the work of Laurent Nottale and his friends, she can surely produce her own Bond film. Jan Ambjorn will play the role of Q. She only now needs to find Moneypenny and then Jurkiewicz will not be bored staring only at Loll. That leaves Nobel laureate Gerrard t Hooft with the role of directing this new Casino Royale, according to the script of Marquis de Sade. How much truth could be said in jest.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisClaude
To those who are writing that E-infinity theory is non sense, I have one question why so many people are imitating or even copying the work of Prof Mohamd El Naschie without refereeing to him?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOssma Ali
Even for Non-Physicists and Non-Mathematician it is clear that the main idea of Dr. Loll`s and Dr. Ambjorn`s paper in Scientific American is taken from the following paper which was published long ago 1993 in the Journal of the Franklin Institute. The paper title is “On turbulence and complex dynamic in a four dimensional Peano- Hilbert space” page 183 – 198. The author is a Professor in the Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y. USA. You see there the same Cantor sets and the same Menger sponge. In the legend of figure 4 the author M.S. El Naschie mentioned explicitly that micro spacetime of Quantum Mechanics may be similar to a four dimensional analogue of this curve. That much at least must be admitted.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGerhard Kroll
The work of Professor Mohamed El Naschie has been reviewed in the year 2000 in Physics Reports. This journal has an impact factor of 20. This ranks after Nature and Science. The paper is called “Fractal Geometry in Quantum Mechanics, field theory and spin systems” . It is Physics Reports no. 323 page 81-181. Page 108 and 109 are devoted to the subject of fractal spacetime. It is mentioned explicitly that the founders of this subject are L. Nottale, M.S. El Naschie and G. Ord. I think it is clear that there must be a coordinated defamation campaign against Professor Nottale, Professor El Naschie and Professor Ord. I also think that reading the comments in this site and reading the paper in Scientific American makes it more than clear who is behind this campaign.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMaurice Ollier
I am putting my comment here too as I see that the site Laffaire El Naschie is yet another where no dissenting voice may remain. I fail to see how any of these people can call themselves scientists at all.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI think everybody must agree that a reasonable scientist distinguishes himself from the average, non-scientific person by a reasonable degree of objectivity without which science could not exist. If we write according to our hearts desire, emotion or lust for revenge and inferiority complexes then we should better find ourselves another profession. For these reasons I appeal to the readers of this site as well as to those responsible for it to remove all slander and non-scientific comments out of this site. I want to read a single comment on this site which is only pertinent to the scientific content of the work of Mohamed El Naschie. Instead I read personal opinions, dressed in philosophical gowns intended only to either condemn or glorify Mohamed El Naschie. This is not a scientific debate.
Much has been said about the controversy between Dr. Renate Loll from the University of Utrecht and Dr. Jan Ambjorn from the Niels Bor Inst., Denmark on the one side and Mohamed El Naschie, Laurent Nottale and Garnet Ord on the other side. The reason is an article which appeared in Scientific American last year. It is said with boring repetition that Renate Loll and Jan Ambjorn plagiarized the work of El Naschie, Nottale and Ord. This may or may not be the case but I deplore any public flogging which reminds me of our Middle Ages. However since this article and the criticism of Loll and Ambjorn, the doors of hell opened on El Naschie and his colleagues. That is when I started to become suspicious. El Naschie has been publishing his work for twenty years or so. It was reviewed everywhere including in Physics Reports as I have just learned. The paper is Fractal geometry in quantum mechanics, field theory and spin systems, 323 (2000), pp. 81-181. One of the first proposals for fractal spacetime by El Naschie was made in the journal of the Franklin Inst., On turbulence and complex dynamics in a four-dimensional Peano-Hilbert space, Vol. 330, No. 1, (1993), pp. 183-198. These are a considerably long time ago but the non-scientific campaign against El Naschie which started in the n-Category Caf� wants us to believe the man was working secretly, in hiding, writing unintelligible papers. Being unintelligible is a relative matter anyway it depends on who is reading it but in all honesty, I have never read a more lucid paper on the subject of quantum spacetime than the following paper by El Naschie, The theory of Cantorian spacetime and high energy particle physics (an informal review), Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, (2008), doi: 10.1016/j.chaos.2008.09.059. An equally excellent historical review was given by a Slovenian mathematician, L. Marek-Crnjac in A short history of fractal-Cantorian spacetime, Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, doi: 10.1016/j.chaos.2008.10.007. I also wanted to understand why El Naschie and why Ambjorn and Loll. I think I have found the connection. I did that not because I hate or love anyone of them, because I do not know anyone of them, but because I followed scientific thinking. El Naschie worked on finite elements. This is basically a Regge calculus, just like Ambjorn. Second El Naschie worked on engineering problems of shells using the theory of Pogorelov. This led him to triangulation and Japanese origami. Again this led him to Ambjorn or led Ambjorn to him. On a very close examination of a wonderful book by the great Russian topologist P.S. Alexandrov you realize that both El Naschie and Ambjorn have read this book very well. The key to understanding the work of both El Naschie and Ambjorn is in this book, particularly chapter number IV entitled Complexes. I forgot to mention the name of the book which is Combinatorial Topology, published by Dover, Copyright 1956. Following this logic El Naschie, Ambjorn and Loll should be the best of friends. There is no place for the remarks of John Baez nor of course the incredible comments by Peter Woit that Mohamed El Naschie was able to publish his work simply because he belongs to some disadvantaged or misfortunate minority. This is really way below any standard I know of and this is a man who has written a book criticizing string theory entitled Not Even Wrong. Finally, the latest news for everybody, the John Baez site n-Category Caf� has disappeared from the web. Of course the harm has been done and now he is the one in hiding. For a scientist, this is most definitely conduct unbecoming. That is definitely wrong. When it comes to character there is nothing called Not Even Wrong. I sincerely hope that this site takes notice of the fact that John Baez groundless allegations have evaporated out of the internet except for those repeating things without knowing if they are right or wrong or even where they come from.
Maybe after reading the Da Vinci code novel or
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thiswatching 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
Abstract: 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).
I refrain to put any comments, I left comments for the readers and it
would be more interesting if one can read the full paper.
Another incidence for showing the supreme capability of E-infinity
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thistheory 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
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).
Oh my god, it is really terrible.
For ever the sniveling dog who does not know what he reads. Prof. An. Prof. G.M. Edelman is a Nobel laureate but then again this would not impress you. You are surrounded by so many of them. Are you out of a job again? Why dont you take up brain research? Follow Einstein. Take a giant leap and donate your brain for brain research. I know for sure that there are some theories about rabies saying that it is inborn, destined from the first minute of birth. Your brain will make a fantastic guinea pig but at least you are sticking to abstracts. It is nice to see even a madman knowing his limitations. Why dont you go to your Caf�. Closed down?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI think it is harsh to call An a sniveling dog. The sniveling is OK but to stick to pure logic, dogs to do not read. Well again, to be a purist, the fact that dogs do not read is not logic, it is only a fact. Not even that because it is a fact restricted to our planet. It is quite conceivable logically that there are other planets in other galaxies where it is completely normal that dogs read. There could also be other galaxies where division by zero is allowed and does not give an infinity. I am afraid this is a completely false statement. It is as false as stating that John Baez is a gentleman and that he is 50% a descendant of the great civilization of the Aztecs, and why not. On the planet of the apes they were waiting for a monkey which can speak. Some would say this wish has been fulfilled by another gentleman who is 50% a descendant of the great Egyptian civilization. His name could be Khalil, Said or the son of Egypt although nobody knows where the other 50% comes from. Didnt Shakespeare say we are all bastards? This is a 100% true statement Prof. An. Good luck studying Mohamed El Naschies work. It is a long way to Tipperary and you have nothing better to do and considering you do not have a clue what you are reading and considering Shakespeare a wonderful kind of beer, you are doing a good job. Keep up the good work. But maybe more importantly, why dont you join an English for foreigners class? Your English is deteriorating quite a bit Prof. An.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe case of John Baez infamous n-Category Cafe. This is a clear case of internet criminality which concerns all scientists, in fact everybody. Today we all rely on the internet. In Britain Gordon Brown said that in two years everybody must have an internet connection. In the USA Obama won his election via the internet. However with the rising internet criminality, all these advantages could be wiped out. The John Baez infamous campaign is a threat to every one of us. Look how well rehearsed it was. He is an internet one man army. He search and finds a victim. The first requirement is the ability to pay, i.e. the victim must be rich. Most of his victims were publishers. He did it with the New Scientist. He is trying with Elsevier. The recipe is easy. You launch a blistering attack using any pretext. Subsequently you spread the defamation using your sock puppets and the internet crime syndicate. He even has a company pretending to be an internet solicitor company to protect you from internet criminality. That is how they find their victims. After you have created such a furor, you commission a mole or two, usually a science writer who is a drop out from a science course in a University to smuggle an article or two in well established popular science magazines, periodical or newspaper. When the scandal becomes official, the original slander on the internet, for instance the n-Category Cafe, disappears and you have only the echo and no legal responsibility. The victim has now to fight rich publishers of say Nature or Scientific American, incidentally both owned by the same holding company. This is exactly what happened now. Like any defamation rat, all the pseudo mathematical garbage with which John Baez the infamous, filled the site of n-Category Cafe disappeared. However the echo of the sock puppets is still there. We still have blogs like Backreaction, Ars Mathematica, Scholarly Kitchen and Friendfeed echoing John Baez n-Category Cafe which no longer exists. By that I mean the site wherein Prof. El Naschie was defamed has evaporated. What John Baez and his co-internet criminals do not know however, is that the state prosecution in the UK and the Federal Republic of Germany as well as the respective lawyers have full copies of the trash which they published with the intention to blackmail Mohamed El Naschie as well as Elsevier Publishing. Now this devilish plan could be used against any innocent person and if he does not have the clout like Prof. Edward Witten and Sir Roger Penrose or the money the stamina of someone like Mohamed El Naschie, then the victim has no alternative except to pay the intimidators and blackmailers or perish. Is that the world we want to live in? Is that what Google who keeps reporting things like a brainless robot want us to have? Is that the age of Google blackmail? John Baez hired cheap puppets like Dr. Skoda from Croatia and Dr. Hindi from Arabia at similarly cheap prices and then cashed in in a big way. Everyone reading this site could contribute to a better world by writing letters of protest against John Baez and anyone like him to Google Directory as well as the Universities which engage people like John Baez which in his case is Riverside University, California, USA. People should stop contributing to these shadowy blogs and should under no circumstances advertise their products on the same page as these blogs. Internet criminality is big business and we can stop it together and those who say we cannot, we can only repeat the words of Obama, together, yes we can.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisS.B.
I have seen the webpage of Renate Loll. I have seen her picture holding her personal little Einstein in her hand. I think she is a case for a psychiatrist who should try to relieve her from whatever she is suffering from.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisJ. Johnson
I fully agree that all this internet criminality of John Baez, Said Elnashaie, Prof. An and the rest of these failed people must end. Alternatively all scientific blogs should be outlawed. They are no longer a source of scientific information. They are a source and means for gossip, mudslinging and defamation. If it must remain like that, then there is something very wrong with science and particularly with physics.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisP. Lewy
It is really funny how this El Naschie spends his time following internet blogs signing with different names and commenting on his own comments. It is unbelievable, on one hand El Naschie (signing with: Lewy, Johnson..etc) speaks about internet criminality and at the same time he attacks Renate Loll calling her a psychiatrist and many other stupid words. Indeed as far as scientists are concerned internet blogs remains a far more reliable source of information than the source of all garbage and junk CSF. I think if El Naschie has the slightest respect to himself he must at least shut-up and hide for ever and save himself from being very possibly prosecuted, because he is playing a stupid game that may turn back over him. The only thing that El Naschie still doesn't understand is that there are IP addresses which can identify the region from which this comments are coming, and as it has been discovered in the n-category cafe all the comments defending El Naschie were coming from the same IP address. So be careful El Naschie and don't take a lot of risk just to save your internet existence (because as far as the real scientific community is concerned you don't even exist! you are a measure zero set, indeed you are an empty set except from noise, lies , fraud, corruption....). Try to have a little of dignity, you know you are scientifically nothing, you don't even know the most elementary things in HEP..and I think you did a good job by creating this journal which gave you the opportunity to pretend for almost two decades to be a scientist..I personally know of no one who succeeded in what you have succeeded..now it is enough! it is time that you stop and retire from being the most successful fraud-scientist.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI am writing now from Canada. I am definitely not Egyptian. Mr. Dor you are definitely a bad person. You write bad things about real people and you hide behind false names. This is very bad.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisChris Norton
think Scientific American should close this site. It is becoming the meeting point for mad people .
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGeorge
To the Editorial Board of Scientific American On-Line
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI think the Editorial Board of Scientific American are well advised to close this site to any further comments. To start with people were talking science. In the last few weeks the standard of comment sank to an all time low, in fact, unprecedented in the history of Scientific American. Democracy and freedom of expression must be limited by moral and good taste. The language used on this site which is supposed to be scientific is not spoken even in the back alleys of certain quarters in London.
Thank you.
This is a direct answer to Paul of Eugene. You are right about the generalisation of the Menger sponge to higher dimensions. A structure which is 4 dimensional and has many relations to the Menger sponge is the Hilbert cube. Mohamed El Naschie seemingly without knowing the Hilbert cube rediscovered it. This is his 4 dimensional model with the following average dimension. An average ind of 4 minus k and an average Ind equals 4 and a covering equal 4 plus the golden mean to the power of 3. The formal dimension is of course infinity as in the classical Hilbert cube. You can read the background to all of that in the book of Alexandrov. The work of El Naschie may be found on Elsevier's Science Direct 2008.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis is a direct response to Dr. dor. You are giving too many answers searching for questions. First how come that a scientist publishes his work not only for twenty years but over thirty five years in many international journals and no one except you notices that it is all garbage, as you put it? Mohamed El Naschie published almost 900 papers in ZAMM, Int. J. of Theoretical Physics, European J. of Physics, Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, Physics Letters and many others. Besides he was the Editor in Chief, Associate Editor or Member of the Editorial Board of over a dozen international journals apart of Chaos, Solitons & Fractals. That would mean a total failure of our entire scientific system to detect garbage, if you were correct. Even more pronounced is the fact that Mohamed El Naschie is the student and a close friend of dozens of well established scientists apart of a handful of Nobel laureates. Mohamed El Naschie lectured together with Nobel laureate Gerrard tHooft as well as Ilya Prigogine and he was even together with Steven Hawkings at various conferences in Japan. In other words all these people must be incompetent or were in deep slumber. The only person who was alert to thirty years or so of scientific deception must have been you, Dr. dor and also to a certain extent, Dr. An. It is therefore your responsibility towards our scientific civilization to give your full name and address, telephone number and more importantly, your affiliation and the department in which your work so that we can benefit from your deep insight into science and how it works in our time. Mind you, I am also puzzled as to why you did not notice it earlier. It must be that you are very young people with extra ordinary talent to have discovered all these latent deceptions so quickly and with such ease. That is quite honestly baffling us. We are still struggling to read some of these 900 papers but you seem to have found a method to cut through the load and come to a conclusion much quicker than our entire scientific establishment. So please, as a matter of urgency communicate to us your address. It is your patriotic duty towards humanity.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn one of his numerous fascinating articles which
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishe dedicated to Gerardus tHooft and titled "On quarks confinement and asymptotic freedom"
(Chaos,Solitons and Fractals 37 (2008)12891291)
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 such
a 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
Physicists.(http://www.phys.uu.nl/~thooft/theoristbad.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!).
Sciences and knowledge is not about using
English in a pedantic and impressive way. One can still do good science
even with broken English but not with broken and sick mind.
In this concluding comment, I am going to show in a rigorous
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thismathematical language that El Nashie is isomorphic to a "Bad
Theoretical Physicist" 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 century’s 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...
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
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 a non
refutable way that El Naschie is in one to one correspondence with
the criteria of a BAD THEORETICAL PHYSICIST. Congratulations for
being a champ!
d
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDespite all this fuss there is one nagging question which cannot be whitewashed. If Mohamed El Naschie’s work is of no value why is a leading centre of excellence in Holland, more precisely in Utrecht, plagiarizing the main idea and concept and masquerading it as something else while everybody, even an educated layman can see that it is essentially the same ideas? When you can answer this question without swearing and rampaging, then I will start to believe what you want us so badly to believe.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDear An We would all be very grateful if you would refrain from making any reference to Prof. tHooft. Your dispute is not our concern. We are grateful for your sensitivity and sensibility.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI think An has done a great job with his tow last comments. The strange thing is that El Naschie is insisting that An is his brother Said. I personally don't think so, because he already accused me to be Said. Any way, what makes me amazed more is the fact that El naschie is continuing to bring in his family scandals and shameful stories about his own family to scientific blogs. This really shows that El Naschie has no moral limit.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMay be El naschie is wondering how I could recognize that all the previous comments are coming from him. I tell him that it is too easy to see that .
I don't need to check and get the IP address, but simply by looking at the words , the stories, "the style of English", and noting that he usually sends empty comments (before sending the complete one) or comments with one letter, sometimes the same comment is sent twice and surprisingly without noticing he sends the same comment with two different signatures.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHow clumsy of Jeffrey S. He addressed only Dr. dor and Dr. An and not Dr. An Said Elnashaie. Thus predictable as with every parasite, comes the answer of An about Nobel laureates and quarks confinement reminding us of his confinement behind bars imprisoned in the Egyptian court. So you are Said again. Said the coward, Said who stole from his mother. Said who escaped to America and pretended to be an environmental scientist. You are not a man. You are not a woman. You are something in between. No that would be an insult to both including eunuchs. If you are a man, even 10% a man, give your name and address and then you will be allowed to ask your master anything. We might even answer your silly questions which you mistake for deep philosophical transactions of a runaway lunatic. Just once sign a letter with your name and address otherwise you will be branded with the only description befitting a creature like you – a little homunculus, fit
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisonly to sit in the lap of Jihan Fadel.
Gentlemen, I hope you are acquainted with this expression, this is a scientific site and not a brothel. If Mr. An or Mr. dor have something to say, they said it and we have understood. Thank you. If you keep on writing then of course El Naschies friends or he himself under a different name or what ever you want to call it, will go on defending his name. By contrast you are writing under pseudo names, also understandably, but you can stop and then probably El Naschies friends or sock puppets will stop writing any comments, at least in theory. So Mr. An and Mr. dor you are the ones who are provoking these entire extremely unpleasant comments. It is within your power to stop it. Making your point over and over again will achieve just the opposite. I hope that much at least is clear to you.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOk I will stop...not because of your comments..but I already decided to do so..it is meaningless to continue with you, I just wanted to show to any one who happens to read this blog how you desperately defend your internet existence ....but I tell you for the last time..I have nothing to do with brother, I learned about his existence from you...and I may give you my real name..but believe me what I was doing is more intelligent than your mind can compass or perceive. You can go and sleep now, but I wonder how one like you can sleep with all this garbage in his mind.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI have a genuine scientific question. I would be grateful to anyone who could help answer it. I know this is a hot site. Initially it was a scientific site but somehow it went another way. Never the less, I will risk it. Here is my question: The inverse coupling constant of quantum gravity as well as the grand unification inverse coupling constant are two of the most important fundamental constants of any general theory going beyond the standard model. I found two radically different values for this constant in the literature. In the classical treaty on quantum field theory Vol. 3 by Nobel laureate Steven Weinberg the value is given by alpha bar equals 17.5. On the other hand in a paper published in the hotly disputed Chaos, Solitons & Fractals the same value is given by 26.18. The paper is entitled Non-perturbative super symmetric quantum gravity coupling, 35 (2008), p. 862-870. There are three possibilities. Either 17.5 is correct or 26.18 is correct or both values are wrong. Now it is very difficult to think that the value given by Weinberg is prima facie wrong. This is not a scientific argument because Nobel laureates can also make mistakes, particularly printing errors. I repeated the calculation and found that it cannot be a printing error. On the other hand, 26.18 is the result of exact transfinite calculation which should be very accurate, in fact exact. So we are still facing the dilemma. I searched in the literature and found that there are many approximate solutions to this problem. For instance John Ellis from CERN found this value to be 24, approximately that is. 24 seems to be a good approximation to 26 but definitely not to 17.5. So here I am puzzled by this discrepancy and do not have the courage to say which one is right and which one is wrong and hence, my question. The question is directed of course in the first instance to Nobel laureate Steven Weinberg who does not answer emails because he is understandably extremely busy. However maybe the Author of the paper Mohamed El Naschie could explain why his result is right and that of Steven Weinberg is wrong because this is what he mentions in his paper. Assuming both do not answer, there is nothing left for me but to hope that somebody reading these comments could help. There is a Ph.D. student whose future depends on a resolution of this discrepancy. Thanks.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOK, I told you that I would stop..but I thought you understood that you should stop too. You are again trying to make monologues discussing nonsense things. If there is PhD student working on this "not even wrong topics": what a wonderful Dr this will be!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBut I understand why you continue writing in this blog. This is the only place left for you where people can see what you write. The days of CSF are gone ( 1 paper each two days).
I am telling you stop writing on this blog ok..stop. !!!
OK, I told you that I would stop..but I thought you understood that you should stop too. You are again trying to make monologues discussing nonsense things. If there is PhD student working on this "not even wrong topics": what a wonderful Dr this will be!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBut I understand why you continue writing in this blog. This is the only place left for you where people can see what you write. The days of CSF are gone ( 1 paper each two days).
I am telling you stop writing on this blog ok..stop. !!!
To those who are writing that E-infinity theory is non sense,I have one question why so many people are imitating or even copying the work of Prof Mohamed El Nashie without refereeing to him
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOssama Ali
Ok Dear genius (El Naschie), the bog is yours , write whatever you like...it seems that I was beating a dead dog ( not to say a horse).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDooooor a mee faso ludicrous. Try to hide your inferiority complexes. Who is paying you? Are you laid off? Where is your address? Where is your name? The eternal coward!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDr. F. Tengelin was quicker than me or more brave than me. I was just thinking of saying the same thing. Let me make his statement more precise. Prof. Steve Weinberg who developed the electro weak theory and shared the Nobel prize with two others is the author of the most authoritative book on quantum field theory. In volume 3 of his book The Quantum Theory of Fields published by Cambridge University Press in 2000 he states on page 192 that the inverse super symmetric unification coupling of all fundamental gauge forces is 17.5. This value is given by his equation 28.2.19. Finding this result scared me quite a bit because I used Prof. El Naschies result which comes to 24.28. This is a large discrepancy. I repeated the calculation again and again but I always found 24.28 and never 17.5. To make things worse Prof. El Naschie noticed immediately that 17.5 must be a miscalculation and said that the exact integer value must be 26. That means 17.5 must be wrong and 24.28 is only an approximation to the exact value which is 26. He said it is obvious that 26 must be correct. He directed me to his paper in Chaos, Solitons & Fractals 35, p. 862 (2008) entitled Non-perturbative super symmetric quantum gravity coupling. I am desperate to know who is right and who is wrong? This result will not affect either the career of a Nobel laureate or the career of a well established professor but it could be devastating for me. I would be extremely grateful to anyone who could help me decide who is right, Prof. Weinberg or Prof. El Naschie. Please send me your answers as quick as possible to the address below.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAyman Elokaby
Dept. of Physics
University of Alexandria
Egypt
There is a new place where you can enjoy more stuff about you:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://elnaschiewatch.blogspot.com/
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNothing in comparison to what one can enjoy reading about your criminal history and profile Said Elnashaie. Nothing compared to the story circulating about Jihan Fadel, your virtuous so-called daughter. But more than anything nothing compared to the story about the parties in the 6th of October in your lovely house in your absence. Apparently there is no law enough for a criminal like you. There is a lot of room for your down there. And you with a few who are helping you will be ending behind bars like you always ended. This is a promise. Just keep your good work. In case you forgot here is your true address:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp: http://thecaseofsaidelnashaie.blogspot.com/
I. This site has witnessed an incredible variety of reasoned insights and at times deeply emotional responses. But all of this should have been expected, given that the authors, Jurkiewicz, Loll and Ambjorn, failed (either intentionally or with extreme irresponsibility) to give due credit to those who had already succeeded in making incredible inroads into the fractalization of space-time. And here I mean particularly the profound insights of Mohamed El Naschie whose prolific pen has cranked out a series of the most stunning papers that I, as a philosopher of science, have ever read. And his brilliant insights fall within the nexus of a group of honorable physicists who have been deeply maligned by this action. Looking back through the variety of responses, I recall MSteffans 08/12/08 avowed sense of embarrassment as a Dutch national recounting El Naschies exact derivation no less than 14 years prior to that of the Spinoza Institute. He rightfully laments the serious ramifications of the choice by &my colleagues [who] opted not to refer to [the simplicity of El Naschies Cantor sets solution] and in the course of doing that ignored the lifelong work of deceased Nobel laureate Ilya Prigogine as well as many living relatively young scientists, notably Laurent Nottale, Garnet Ord, Ervin Goldfain and Ji-Huan He to mention only a few. He then went on to call for the need to remedy this situation immediately, the sooner the better: I think the sooner this story is closed in a way befitting the prestige of t Hooft, University of Utrecht and Holland the better it will be for everyone.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFrankly this is a scandal that never, ever should have been allowed to happen (and clearly should have been caught by the S.I. editors), and will be difficult for the physics and science community at large to live down. You may think the Leibnitz/ Newton controversy has drawn attention over the years, listen, mark my words, we have here a clear-cut egregious decision by a group of authors to usurp credit which is not their due. This is not a controversy, this is a full-blown scandal! I do not allow my freshmen and sophomore students to turn in a research paper without properly citing to the sources of the ideas presented. And this is much, much worse.
II. I originally wrote a letter to the editors of S.A. on 7/21/08. In it I wrote how I was literally stunned by the failure of the authors to acknowledge the prior work of El Naschie, the former protégé of Ilya Prigogine. I pointed out that he is clearly the “recognized originator of the idea of using Cantor sets to rigorously deduce the topological dimension and the Hausdorff dimension of space-time.” And furthermore, the fact that “the Hausdorff dimension of a random Cantor set is equal to the golden mean” allowed El Naschie to solve what was otherwise an intractable problem, and to do it without a computer. My concern then, and now, is very simple, “as a philosopher of science deeply interested in the creativity, novelty, and proper recognition of precedence in hypothesis formation [italics added], I for one believe that this oversight in an otherwise splendid article must not go unaddressed.” But tell me, what in fact have the authors, and just as importantly, the S.A. editors done about this, or should I say, failed to do?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnd then we have had this inane distraction from the accusations of John Baez and others who have attempted to besmirch the character of El Naschie. Anyone who has ever spent any time with El Naschie will attest to both his utter brilliance and role model character. And the attempted distraction is just that, an effort by very petty individuals to cloud the merits of his work. Indeed, it is incredible how jealousy, lust for attention, deceit and outright ignorance can cloud the mind and muddy the waters. But it is interesting how ultimately the truth has a way of prevailing. Everything is ultimately exposed. And isn’t it intriguing to see how those so ready to defame others are ferreted out in the process. And this is why I am so concerned about the failure of the authors of said article and the editors of S.A. to act promptly to remedy this situation. I can assure you, it will not go away! Look at the number of blogs created over this outrageous fiasco. Some have called for an article in S.I. to address this. Others have called for an investigation of three periodicals, included amongst them S.I. My call is simply for the authors and editors to do what is right. Certainly the editors of what many of us have considered to be one of the most prestigious exponents of science and the quest for knowledge, hold a fiduciary duty (a duty of trust) towards their readers to always seek and report the truth, at all costs. As the editors of this publication, who rightfully, courageously and admirably took George W. Bush to task in a 4-26-04 S.A. editorial for his “Lysenkoism” and distortion of scientific results – you simply MUST NOT fall victim to the same kind of disinformation and deceit that he was guilty of perpetrating upon the American people. This failure to act in the way that we entrust you to do, or nonfeasance, is now borderline malfeasance, or actual misconduct. I implore you, please, get up off your hands and quit sitting by in silence, and do something about this before further articles are published which perpetuate the wrong already done to not only Mohamed El Naschie, but all the other fine scientists concerned.
Dr. F. Tengelin was quicker than me or more brave than me. I was just thinking of saying the same thing. Let me make his statement more precise. Prof. Steve Weinberg who developed the electro weak theory and shared the Nobel prize with two others is the author of the most authoritative book on quantum field theory. In volume 3 of his book The Quantum Theory of Fields published by Cambridge University Press in 2000 he states on page 192 that the inverse super symmetric unification coupling of all fundamental gauge forces is 17.5. This value is given by his equation 28.2.19. Finding this result scared me quite a bit because I used Prof. El Naschies result which comes to 24.28. This is a large discrepancy. I repeated the calculation again and again but I always found 24.28 and never 17.5. To make things worse Prof. El Naschie noticed immediately that 17.5 must be a miscalculation and said that the exact integer value must be 26. That means 17.5 must be wrong and 24.28 is only an approximation to the exact value which is 26. He said it is obvious that 26 must be correct. He directed me to his paper in Chaos, Solitons & Fractals 35, p. 862 (2008) entitled Non-perturbative super symmetric quantum gravity coupling. I am desperate to know who is right and who is wrong? This result will not affect either the career of a Nobel laureate or the career of a well established professor but it could be devastating for me. I would be extremely grateful to anyone who could help me decide who is right, Prof. Weinberg or Prof. El Naschie. Please send me your answers as quick as possible to the address below.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAyman Elokaby
Dept. of Physics
University of Alexandria
Egypt
I for one do not take this defamatory blog entitled (http://elnaschiewatch.blogspot.com) lightly. I take it very seriously and I think such practice threatens our civilized societies, the very foundation of it. Baez, Droesser, Said, Schermeier may have been juvenile delinquents but now they have matured into full fledged criminal society. The responsibility falls squarely with Scientific American. It is not Renate Loll nor Nature. Had Scientific American acted in the proper way entrusted to them all of this would not have happened. Now you have an international scandal involving Nobel Laureates and internet fascists. Calling Elnaschie a terrorist and picturing him with guns will lead most definitely to criminal persecution and possibly an international conflict. One look at this site will convince you that the people behind this campaign have completely lost their marble and passed the point of no return.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe webmaster of a blog orgy devoted to character assassinations see:http://elnaschiewatch.blogspot.com - is exclaiming why Prof. Dr. El Naschie is not attempting to take a court order against them. I could attempt to satisfy his perverted curiosity but I doubt it would help him. First, he is wrong to think that John Baez was threatened with legal proceedings and that is why his site on the n-Category caf� blog disappeared. Unlike the webmaster of this doubtful blog, John Baez is a mathematician and not entirely an idiot. John Baez childish mathematical argument with which he thought would frighten the daylight out of Prof. Mohamed El Naschie failed to do the trick. The man was rational enough to call his bluff. It was truly embarrassing for John Baez. He got every single point wrong. Of course there are two and three stein spaces as Mohamed El Naschie said. Of course there are Riemannian surfaces and what is more embarrassing it is well known that there are 17 of them. It is mathematics post graduate course material and J. Baez should have known it and now he had to be told about it from a civil engineer. Second, of course there are 8 exceptional Lie groups of the E line family. This is the result of modern research on E8 in the last ten years. So here again, John Baez and his sock puppet Skoda from Croatia made fools of themselves and had to realize that El Naschie was using well known mathematics. How embarrassing! A civil engineer can rehearse the 8 Exceptional E groups correctly while John Baez, the mathematician does not even recognize them even after being explained to him. El Naschie never bothered to answer them and left them to be punished by their own ignorance. Now I come to answer the question posed by the webmaster. If after all what I have said above, someone so blind with ignorance and hatred like the said webmaster comes along collecting all the false statements of John Baez and exposing it once more on the internet, then the better it is for Prof. El Naschie. If this webmaster is sufficiently stupid as it is apparently the case to add all these obscene and scandalous pictures with Hamas terrorists, then there is no doubt that Prof. El Naschie and his supporters will be delighted. For them and for any sane person, this is a court affidavit attesting for their perversity and the real reason behind the disgraceful defamation campaign and character assassination against Prof. El Naschie and his work. When will these internet criminals understand that scientific methods in criticizing scientific theory how.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhen will these internet criminals understand that scientific methods in criticizing scientific theory however harsh are normally accepted. By contrast, when you use non scientific arguments they only can discredit themselves. In the case of the n-Category caf�, and far more this El Naschie watch site, they have done it to themselves master way. In the circumstances it would be foolish for El Naschie and his supporters to move a finger.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe internet subculture is striking back. Typical for the mob. The more you warn them the worse they become. After the fiasco of this new un-site and the no blog named http://elnaschiewatch.blogspot.com , the responsible or should I say the irresponsible people crossed the line to pornography. The site and all what is discussed there reminds one of a revolting picture of decay or a carcass, this time of science and the big name which we used to revere. How is it possible that we can think that low? This is a question which the author of the article in Scientific American should think very seriously about. The damage has nothing to do with reputation of an innocent man like Mohamed El Naschie. The damage is global. Holland is of course a very liberal country. Unfortunately this liberalism brought us things like Big Brother TV show. Nevertheless I thought there are things that are still sacred in Holland. I invite Nobel Laureate Gerard tHooft as well as the Director of the University of Utrecht and maybe the Interior Minister of Holland to have a good look at this site and decide if they want to be part of that. In case you forgot the blog address, here it is again: http://elnaschiewatch.blogspot.com
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBy mentioning Brigiette Bardot you are implicating Nobel laureate Garradus tHooft and by mentioning twin towers and 9/11 you are implicating the whole of Egypt. You are playing with fire and you are ignorant and narrow minded and crazy enough to not realize how bad this will end for you. This is a coded message to the lunatic hairy monster of the M4. His current address is: http://elnaschiewatch.blogspot.com/
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnother beautiful cartoon sumarizing the case of El naschie in:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://medinfo.netbib.de/archives/2009/01/23/2975
Beer-Review statt Peer-Review: Der Elsevier/El-Naschie-Fall
Beer Review instead of peer review: The Elsevier / El-Nashi-case
Enjoy it
I am puzzled by those who are puzzled by E-Infinity theory. Possibly familiarity breeds contempt. But I fail to find out where the difficulty with E-Infinity lies. Reversing the proverb it maybe that unfamiliarity of the typical physicist with E-Infinity methodology is at the root of the puzzle. How could we change this regrettable situation? Maybe the following tour de simplicite is a partial remedy. To understand E-Infinity we start by the master plan which Mohamed El Naschie attributes correctly to Prof. John Archibald Wheeler namely a Borel set. Now we move to the geometric measure theory. Suddenly you are amidst of it all. There you find the whole shebang of el Naschies mathematics at reduced retail prices. The liet motif is non-Wagernian simple. Geometric Measure Theory generalizes differential geometry to deal with the functions, maps and general geometric surfaces that are not necessarily smooth. From there to E-Infinity it is a
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisrelatively short road. I showed my comments to the master of the trade before posting it here and he agreed with minor reservations.
Ayman El Okaby
Department of Physics
Alexandria University
Dr. F. Tengelin was quicker than me or more brave than me. I was just thinking of saying the same thing. Let me make his statement more precise. Prof. Steve Weinberg who developed the electro weak theory and shared the Nobel prize with two others is the author of the most authoritative book on quantum field theory. In volume 3 of his book The Quantum Theory of Fields published by Cambridge University Press in 2000 he states on page 192 that the inverse super symmetric unification coupling of all fundamental gauge forces is 17.5. This value is given by his equation 28.2.19. Finding this result scared me quite a bit because I used Prof. El Naschies result which comes to 24.28. This is a large discrepancy. I repeated the calculation again and again but I always found 24.28 and never 17.5. To make things worse Prof. El Naschie noticed immediately that 17.5 must be a miscalculation and said that the exact integer value must be 26. That means 17.5 must be wrong and 24.28 is only an approximation to the exact value which is 26. He said it is obvious that 26 must be correct. He directed me to his paper in Chaos, Solitons & Fractals 35, p. 862 (2008) entitled Non-perturbative super symmetric quantum gravity coupling. I am desperate to know who is right and who is wrong? This result will not affect either the career of a Nobel laureate or the career of a well established professor but it could be devastating for me. I would be extremely grateful to anyone who could help me decide who is right, Prof. Weinberg or Prof. El Naschie. Please send me your answers as quick as possible to the address below.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAyman Elokaby
Dept. of Physics
University of Alexandria
Egypt
Dr. F. Tengelin was quicker than me or more brave than me. I was just thinking of saying the same thing. Let me make his statement more precise. Prof. Steve Weinberg who developed the electro weak theory and shared the Nobel prize with two others is the author of the most authoritative book on quantum field theory. In volume 3 of his book The Quantum Theory of Fields published by Cambridge University Press in 2000 he states on page 192 that the inverse super symmetric unification coupling of all fundamental gauge forces is 17.5. This value is given by his equation 28.2.19. Finding this result scared me quite a bit because I used Prof. El Naschies result which comes to 24.28. This is a large discrepancy. I repeated the calculation again and again but I always found 24.28 and never 17.5. To make things worse Prof. El Naschie noticed immediately that 17.5 must be a miscalculation and said that the exact integer value must be 26. That means 17.5 must be wrong and 24.28 is only an approximation to the exact value which is 26. He said it is obvious that 26 must be correct. He directed me to his paper in Chaos, Solitons & Fractals 35, p. 862 (2008) entitled Non-perturbative super symmetric quantum gravity coupling. I am desperate to know who is right and who is wrong? This result will not affect either the career of a Nobel laureate or the career of a well established professor but it could be devastating for me. I would be extremely grateful to anyone who could help me decide who is right, Prof. Weinberg or Prof. El Naschie. Please send me your answers as quick as possible to the address below.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAyman Elokaby
Dept. of Physics
University of Alexandria
Egypt
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI have failed to read a single genuine comment from a respectable and authoritative scientist condemning the work of Mohamed El Naschie on these trashy blogs. I have read only comments which can be only attributed to the mob and unholy alliance between neo-Nazi, Zionists and the fraternity of the blogshere. This new fraternity of internet maniacs and thugs specialized in blackmail is a truly new horrifying phenomena.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAyman El Okaby mentioned the discrepancy between the result of Nobel Laureate Steven Weinberg and his result. Steven Weinberg found the inverse quantum gravity coupling for super symmetry to be 17.5. On the other hand, El Okaby found it to be 26. He is asking which is result is correct and which is wrong. I do not know but there is a survey in which both values are quoted. The survey is given in table 5 of the following paper On a class of general theories for high energy particle physics. It seems from this table that the value 26 is more likely to be the correct one. This is a pure common sense conclusion because 9 of the ten values quoted in this survey are very close to 26. The only value which differs is that given by Weinberg namely 17.5.Thus this value is the odd one out and more likely to be the wrong one. I hope this helps.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis is a direct response to the comment by Juan regarding the discrepancy between the result of Nobel Laureate Weinberg and the result found by Mr. El Okaby. The paper he refers to in his comment is titled: On a class of general theories for high energy particle physics, by M. S. El Naschie, published in Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, 14(2002) 649-668.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDr. F. Tengelin was quicker than me or more brave than me. I was just thinking of saying the same thing. Let me make his statement more precise. Prof. Steve Weinberg who developed the electro weak theory and shared the Nobel prize with two others is the author of the most authoritative book on quantum field theory. In volume 3 of his book The Quantum Theory of Fields published by Cambridge University Press in 2000 he states on page 192 that the inverse super symmetric unification coupling of all fundamental gauge forces is 17.5. This value is given by his equation 28.2.19. Finding this result scared me quite a bit because I used Prof. El Naschies result which comes to 24.28. This is a large discrepancy. I repeated the calculation again and again but I always found 24.28 and never 17.5. To make things worse Prof. El Naschie noticed immediately that 17.5 must be a miscalculation and said that the exact integer value must be 26. That means 17.5 must be wrong and 24.28 is only an approximation to the exact value which is 26. He said it is obvious that 26 must be correct. He directed me to his paper in Chaos, Solitons & Fractals 35, p. 862 (2008) entitled Non-perturbative super symmetric quantum gravity coupling. I am desperate to know who is right and who is wrong? This result will not affect either the career of a Nobel laureate or the career of a well established professor but it could be devastating for me. I would be extremely grateful to anyone who could help me decide who is right, Prof. Weinberg or Prof. El Naschie. Please send me your answers as quick as possible to the address below.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAyman Elokaby
Dept. of Physics
University of Alexandria
Egypt
am puzzled by those who are puzzled by E-Infinity theory. Possibly familiarity breeds contempt. But I fail to find out where the difficulty with E-Infinity lies. Reversing the proverb it maybe that unfamiliarity of the typical physicist with E-Infinity methodology is at the root of the puzzle. How could we change this regrettable situation? Maybe the following tour de simplicite is a partial remedy. To understand E-Infinity we start by the master plan which Mohamed El Naschie attributes correctly to Prof. John Archibald Wheeler namely a Borel set. Now we move to the geometric measure theory. Suddenly you are amidst of it all. There you find the whole shebang of el Naschies mathematics at reduced retail prices. The liet motif is non-Wagernian simple. Geometric Measure Theory generalizes differential geometry to deal with the functions, maps and general geometric surfaces that are not necessarily smooth. From there to E-Infinity it is a
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisrelatively short road. I showed my comments to the master of the trade before posting it here and he agreed with minor reservations.
Ayman El Okaby
Department of Physics
Alexandria University
I am puzzled by those who are puzzled by E-Infinity theory. Possibly familiarity breeds contempt. But I fail to find out where the difficulty with E-Infinity lies. Reversing the proverb it maybe that unfamiliarity of the typical physicist with E-Infinity methodology is at the root of the puzzle. How could we change this regrettable situation? Maybe the following tour de simplicite is a partial remedy. To understand E-Infinity we start by the master plan which Mohamed El Naschie attributes correctly to Prof. John Archibald Wheeler namely a Borel set. Now we move to the geometric measure theory. Suddenly you are amidst of it all. There you find the whole shebang of el Naschies mathematics at reduced retail prices. The liet motif is non-Wagernian simple. Geometric Measure Theory generalizes differential geometry to deal with the functions, maps and general geometric surfaces that are not necessarily smooth. From there to E-Infinity it is a
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisrelatively short road. I showed my comments to the master of the trade before posting it here and he agreed with minor reservations.
Ayman El Okaby
Department of Physics
Alexandria University
I am puzzled by those who are puzzled by E-Infinity theory. Possibly familiarity breeds contempt. But I fail to find out where the difficulty with E-Infinity lies. Reversing the proverb it maybe that unfamiliarity of the typical physicist with E-Infinity methodology is at the root of the puzzle. How could we change this regrettable situation? Maybe the following tour de simplicite is a partial remedy. To understand E-Infinity we start by the master plan which Mohamed El Naschie attributes correctly to Prof. John Archibald Wheeler namely a Borel set. Now we move to the geometric measure theory. Suddenly you are amidst of it all. There you find the whole shebang of el Naschies mathematics at reduced retail prices. The liet motif is non-Wagernian simple. Geometric Measure Theory generalizes differential geometry to deal with the functions, maps and general geometric surfaces that are not necessarily smooth. From there to E-Infinity it is a
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisrelatively short road. I showed my comments to the master of the trade before posting it here and he agreed with minor reservations.
Ayman El Okaby
Department of Physics
Alexandria University
This is to answer puppetphd question. Regarding the personality of Ayman El Okaby, I would like to inform that there is really a living organism whose name is Ayman El Okaby and he is supposedly doing his PhD with El naschie. However, I should tell you that I am 100% sure that he is not the one who is writing and posting over and over those comments, I can infer from the English style, it is El naschie himself who is signing with the name of Ayman. Ayman English is very poor and easy to recognize.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisam puzzled by those who are puzzled by E-Infinity theory. Possibly familiarity breeds contempt. But I fail to find out where the difficulty with E-Infinity lies. Reversing the proverb it maybe that unfamiliarity of the typical physicist with E-Infinity methodology is at the root of the puzzle. How could we change this regrettable situation? Maybe the following tour de simplicite is a partial remedy. To understand E-Infinity we start by the master plan which Mohamed El Naschie attributes correctly to Prof. John Archibald Wheeler namely a Borel set. Now we move to the geometric measure theory. Suddenly you are amidst of it all. There you find the whole shebang of el Naschies mathematics at reduced retail prices. The liet motif is non-Wagernian simple. Geometric Measure Theory generalizes differential geometry to deal with the functions, maps and general geometric surfaces that are not necessarily smooth. From there to E-Infinity it is a
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisrelatively short road. I showed my comments to the master of the trade before posting it here and he agreed with minor reservations.
Ayman El Okaby
Department of Physics
Alexandria University
Your mathematical incompetence whoever you are is no where as evident as in your comment about adding, subtracting, dividing and multiplying. I am ready to lend you a dime. Said Elnashaie take the money and go and call your mother tell her your future as a mathematician or a scientist is as bleak as the black soul governing everything you utter on this site.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOf course it is clear as Mr. El Okaby says that there are no mysteries in the work of Mohamed El Naschie. All you need is to understand the transfinite general theory of dimensions due to Menger and Uhryson as well as measure theory.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDr. Said Elnashaie or Puppetphd. Let me tell you why I don’t respect you. I don’t respect you because you turned scientific arguments into non-scientific arguments. This is not the first time in history, far worse was done to Einstein and far worse was done to better and lesser people. However, I have never encountered this low standard and misuse of the English Language. You find El Naschie’s work worthless. You are entitled to your opinion. You hate Prof. El Naschie for personal reasons including whatever. You are also entitled to that. What you have never learned and apparently will never understand is that you should not mix one with the other. But that is what you are doing all the time with hysterical intensity. In the course of following your lust for revenge of El Naschie you did not stop for a minute to think how many more people you are harming. You are behaving like suicide bombers. I read what is written about you in the English version of sentencing you for two years hard labor. You didn’t spare your mother or anyone else You are a man full of rage and hatred. You may have your reasons as far as any human being can have his reasons for being insane. You could plead insanity in any court in any civilized country and you would be taken for treatment. Now you unleash your anger and blind hatred against an innocent Ph.D. student in Alexandria University. You are a reckless person with nothing sacred whatsoever. That is why I and many people have no respect for you or what you write.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat a downfall? Far worse than the twilights of the Gods. From a distinguished professor in Penn State University to a toilet clerk in Sinai – that is more than anyone can take. You have my sympathy.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI am puzzled by those who are puzzled by E-Infinity theory. Possibly familiarity breeds contempt. But I fail to find out where the difficulty with E-Infinity lies. Reversing the proverb it maybe that unfamiliarity of the typical physicist with E-Infinity methodology is at the root of the puzzle. How could we change this regrettable situation? Maybe the following tour de simplicite is a partial remedy. To understand E-Infinity we start by the master plan which Mohamed El Naschie attributes correctly to Prof. John Archibald Wheeler namely a Borel set. Now we move to the geometric measure theory. Suddenly you are amidst of it all. There you find the whole shebang of el Naschies mathematics at reduced retail prices. The liet motif is non-Wagernian simple. Geometric Measure Theory generalizes differential geometry to deal with the functions, maps and general geometric surfaces that are not necessarily smooth. From there to E-Infinity it is a
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisrelatively short road. I showed my comments to the master of the trade before posting it here and he agreed with minor reservations.
Ayman El Okaby
Department of Physics
Alexandria University
Said Elnashaie it is not strange to call yourself a student of Drama and Theatre in Germany. This is an understatement. You are an accomplished actor. The crocodile tears in front of your boss a couple of days ago and demeaning yourself by showing them family dirty linen and forged documents on top of that, put you on par with your step daughter Jehan. The language you use is indicative of your psyche. You would make a wonderful stuff for a Hitchcock Psycho 2 movie. A misfit and a genetically disordered victim of nature. So in a sense you could be innocent if you just allow people to give you the medical treatment you urgently need. If in any doubt, here again is your profile http://saidelnashaie.blogspot.com/
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://thecaseofsaidelnashaie.blogspot.com/
better known as your Certificate of Conviction in two languages. By the way your performance in front of your boss has earned you more disrepute and deep contempt than you could ever imagine in your malignant fantasy and your soul so stuffed with hate that you cant see that the whole of Egypt can no more afford to have not even in Sinai. Although these are harsh words and may not bring anything positive, they are sincere and any sane person would have recognized them as such.
Yes you are right. It is time that the arab world and the western world reach each others the hands and understand the gifts offered to them. El Naschie is a saviour and it is not happening all the time that a man of his kind is born to bring peace and progress and prosperity to the world. He even is willing to suffer from the envy of other people. At the end, even a nobel prize for peace could be acceptable.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisyes
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI am puzzled by those who are puzzled by E-Infinity theory. Possibly familiarity breeds contempt. But I fail to find out where the difficulty with E-Infinity lies. Reversing the proverb it maybe that unfamiliarity of the typical physicist with E-Infinity methodology is at the root of the puzzle. How could we change this regrettable situation? Maybe the following tour de simplicite is a partial remedy. To understand E-Infinity we start by the master plan which Mohamed El Naschie attributes correctly to Prof. John Archibald Wheeler namely a Borel set. Now we move to the geometric measure theory. Suddenly you are amidst of it all. There you find the whole shebang of el Naschies mathematics at reduced retail prices. The liet motif is non-Wagernian simple. Geometric Measure Theory generalizes differential geometry to deal with the functions, maps and general geometric surfaces that are not necessarily smooth. From there to E-Infinity it is a
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisrelatively short road. I showed my comments to the master of the trade before posting it here and he agreed with minor reservations.
Ayman El Okaby
Department of Physics
Alexandria University
There is a silver lining to the vicious campaign against Prof. Mohamed El Naschie. We were referred to this site by our colleagues in China who hold the utmost respect for this man. They were dismayed that some people out there have made it their life long mission to attack and character assassinate him. We decided to check this man out and we started by reading and researching his scientific work. We have news for you out there! What we found is amazing. His E-Infinity theory deserves our utmost admiration. For you to understand it, you need to be well versed in mathematics. We scrutinized his mathematics and equations, and the results were amazing. Those who claim it is numerology have no clue about what this man has succeeded in doing. We agree with his advocates that this is a paradigm shift and sooner than later this man will get the recognition he deserves. We will continue to follow his work closely and we know that his work has stirred a lot of interest and we all know that no important work such as his can be acknowledged without first raising a lot of controversy.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat would broken self employed journalists, failed scientists and those who flatter themselves to be either do if they did not have the internet to libel innocent people? It is interesting to observe the truthfulness of many theories of psychology about projection. Those who are unequivocal crackpots would call some outstanding scientists crackpots. Those are definite frauds would attempt to smear everyone they hate as being a fraud. What is the end of all that? Well one of Mohamed El Naschies heroes is von Neuman. John Nashs work on zero sum game goes back to von Neuman. Now as an exercise please add Schiemeier of Nature, Christoph Drosser of Die Zeit and Said Elnashaie of no particular known address and you will have a perfect zero sum.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMr. Ans tragedy is almost a mirror image of a nearly 2000 year old tragedy. Remember Salome? She was the step daughter of the King of Palestine. The wife of the King wanted the head of a man who was announcing the coming of Savior of humanity who was later on crucified, like so many innocent people even today in the Middle East. The King was unwilling, afraid from the wrath of the Gods if he beheaded a Holy man. At the same time the King lusted after his step daughter. At the end he succumbed to temptation for the price of a very short lived joyful sin and he beheaded the Messenger of a better life. How true for Mr. An whose real name we all know. How true for his step daughter the actress whose name is just as well known, if not more. The natural decency of any human being is what prevents me from citing the names publicly but Mr. An of course does not suffer from such an affliction as natural decency. He is happy to hide behind a pseudo name and throw his dirt in the faces of innocent people. The only consolation for people like myself is that a man like An is punished by the very nature of his character far more than any external agent or person could punish him. He can spend the rest of his life posting comments that help him to live in the fantasy land where thieves and perverted maniacs are portrayed as crusaders for the integrity of science, while the truth is that they are neither scientists nor possess a trace of integrity
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNow now Mr. An, temper temper. Dont blow your top just because an honest Court in Germany ruled that the Die Zeit article is defamatory lies. Here are the sober facts, if you know what this means. Mr. Drosser claimed that he met Prof. Otto Peitgen. Fact is Prof. Otto Peitgen, the famous fractal scientist has never seen Mr.Drosser. It is a blatant lie. Mr. Drosser said Prof. El Naschie is not a professor. Proof was produced that Prof. El Naschie is a professor. Some certificates from nothing less than University of Stanford, USA signed by Prof. George Herman where produced and so on and so on. This is not the Middle East where you can buy a judge for a modest sum of money. This is Germany, a center of modern civilization where truthfulness prevails at the end. The same will happen in England Mr. An. Besides, when you remember your own real name and address, you may contact us again. Toodleloo.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI am still keenly interested in a satisfactory resolution of the correct inverse coupling constant of unification of all fundamental forces. The value found by Nobel Laureate Steven Weinberg is 17.5 as given on page 192 of volume III of his book The Quantum Theory of Fields Cambridge (2000). This 17.5 is for super symmetric grand unification. On the other hand, the leading German Theoretical Physicist W. Greiner gives the value 26 as easily estimated from figure 9.11 page 377 of his famous textbook Gauge Theory of Weak Interaction published by Springer Berlin 1994. My own calculation based on Mohamed Elnaschie exact E-Infinity theory gives 26.18033989 which is very close to the value given by Greiner in his book. It seems that 17.5 must be excluded unless we are overlooking something. To go to the bottom of the discrepancy, I should refer to a remarkable paper by Mohamed Elnaschie titled Quantum gravity unification via transfinite
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisarithmetic and geometrical averaging published in Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, volume 35(2008) pp 252 256. In this paper Elnaschie uses the exact three inverse couplings of electromagnetism 60, weak force 30 and strong force 10 as idealized for the electroweak energy scale. These values lead to the inverse Summerfield constant 137 as well as three inverse couplings for pair wise unification, namely the electromagnetic and weak force 42.4, the weak force and strong force 17.3 and the electromagnetic and strong force 24.49. Subsequently, Elnaschie shows that the three inverse couplings lead to 26.18 almost exactly as the E-Infinity exact solution. The new insight is however the value of the electromagnetic and weak force namely 17.3 which is very close to that found by Weinberg. The question is therefore the following: Could Weinberg result of 17.5 be interpreted as a partial unification coupling? I would be grateful to any helpful comment.
Ayman El Okaby
Department of Physics
Alexandria -Egypt
If you look for the Nature article about El Naschie you will not find it. Nature has taken the article out of its online version. This speaks for the high standard of Nature. Those who like and live from defamation will not be impressed. John Baez disappeared first. The defamatory article of Christoph Droesser disappeared second. Now Nature article disappeared. The only conclusion is the logical conclusion. It was all a defamation campaign nothing more or less. Unfortunately and given the low standard of the so called scientific blogs it will be business like usual i.e. defamation will go on. That is the stuff from which these blogs are made.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSiegfried Lenz, Hamburg
If you look for the Nature article about El Naschie you will not find it. Nature has taken the article out of its online version. This speaks for the high standard of Nature. Those who like and live from defamation will not be impressed. John Baez disappeared first. The defamatory article of Christoph Droesser disappeared second. Now Nature article disappeared. The only conclusion is the logical conclusion. It was all a defamation campaign nothing more or less. Unfortunately and given the low standard of the so called scientific blogs it will be business like usual i.e. defamation will go on. That is the stuff from which these blogs are made.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSiegfried Lenz, Hamburg
This is to let you all know that the article in Nature about Mohamed El Naschie has been removed and is no longer accessible. In short it disappeared.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAlso der Artikel von Nature über El Naschie ist auch verschwunden. Das heißt, alles was darin über El Naschie geschrieben wurde war Betrug am Leser. Ziemlich peinlich für DIE ZEIT. Jetzt gibt es für Sie Herr Drösser nur eine einzige Sache und zwar, Herrn El Naschie um Entschuldigung zu bitten. Er war ein Gast in unserem Land und ich bitte um Entschuldigung bei ihm. Herr Drösser wenn Sie ein Ehrenmann sind, dann sollten Sie das Gleiche tun. Vergessen Sie nicht, Ihr Artikel basierte auf den Verleumdungen von John Baez und den falschen Fakten des Natureartikels. Ferner hat Herr Professor Dr. Heinz Otto Peitgen, der mir sehr gut bekannt ist, allen seinen Freunden versichert, dass er Sie nicht kennt und auch nie mit Ihnen gesprochen hat.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDr. Ulrich Graf
I am still keenly interested in a satisfactory resolution of the correct inverse coupling constant of unification of all fundamental forces. The value found by Nobel Laureate Steven Weinberg is 17.5 as given on page 192 of volume III of his book The Quantum Theory of Fields Cambridge (2000). This 17.5 is for super symmetric grand unification. On the other hand, the leading German Theoretical Physicist W. Greiner gives the value 26 as easily estimated from figure 9.11 page 377 of his famous textbook Gauge Theory of Weak Interaction published by Springer Berlin 1994. My own calculation based on Mohamed Elnaschie exact E-Infinity theory gives 26.18033989 which is very close to the value given by Greiner in his book. It seems that 17.5 must be excluded unless we are overlooking something. To go to the bottom of the discrepancy, I should refer to a remarkable paper by Mohamed Elnaschie titled Quantum gravity unification via transfinite
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisarithmetic and geometrical averaging published in Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, volume 35(2008) pp 252 256. In this paper Elnaschie uses the exact three inverse couplings of electromagnetism 60, weak force 30 and strong force 10 as idealized for the electroweak energy scale. These values lead to the inverse Summerfield constant 137 as well as three inverse couplings for pair wise unification, namely the electromagnetic and weak force 42.4, the weak force and strong force 17.3 and the electromagnetic and strong force 24.49. Subsequently, Elnaschie shows that the three inverse couplings lead to 26.18 almost exactly as the E-Infinity exact solution. The new insight is however the value of the electromagnetic and weak force namely 17.3 which is very close to that found by Weinberg. The question is therefore the following: Could Weinberg result of 17.5 be interpreted as a partial unification coupling? I would be grateful to any helpful comment.
Ayman El Okaby
Department of Physics
Alexandria -Egypt
To the "real" Baron. Would you please be so friendly and state your identity? I am sure that I am the real D. Baron - it feels very real to me. Maybe your name is D. Baron, too. What is your name and address?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisD. Baron
I am the real D. Baron!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI am the real D. Baron. Don't you believe the blatant lies of all the others.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI'm the only Baron. Trust me.
Mohamed S. El Naschie
Full Professor
University of Cambridge
I am still keenly interested in a satisfactory resolution of the correct inverse coupling constant of unification of all fundamental forces. The value found by Nobel Laureate Steven Weinberg is 17.5 as given on page 192 of volume III of his book The Quantum Theory of Fields Cambridge (2000). This 17.5 is for super symmetric grand unification. On the other hand, the leading German Theoretical Physicist W. Greiner gives the value 26 as easily estimated from figure 9.11 page 377 of his famous textbook Gauge Theory of Weak Interaction published by Springer Berlin 1994. My own calculation based on Mohamed Elnaschie exact E-Infinity theory gives 26.18033989 which is very close to the value given by Greiner in his book. It seems that 17.5 must be excluded unless we are overlooking something. To go to the bottom of the discrepancy, I should refer to a remarkable paper by Mohamed Elnaschie titled Quantum gravity unification via transfinite
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisarithmetic and geometrical averaging published in Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, volume 35(2008) pp 252 256. In this paper Elnaschie uses the exact three inverse couplings of electromagnetism 60, weak force 30 and strong force 10 as idealized for the electroweak energy scale. These values lead to the inverse Summerfield constant 137 as well as three inverse couplings for pair wise unification, namely the electromagnetic and weak force 42.4, the weak force and strong force 17.3 and the electromagnetic and strong force 24.49. Subsequently, Elnaschie shows that the three inverse couplings lead to 26.18 almost exactly as the E-Infinity exact solution. The new insight is however the value of the electromagnetic and weak force namely 17.3 which is very close to that found by Weinberg. The question is therefore the following: Could Weinberg result of 17.5 be interpreted as a partial unification coupling? I would be grateful to any helpful comment.
Ayman El Okaby
Department of Physics
Alexandria -Egypt
I am still keenly interested in a satisfactory resolution of the correct inverse coupling constant of unification of all fundamental forces. The value found by Nobel Laureate Steven Weinberg is 17.5 as given on page 192 of volume III of his book The Quantum Theory of Fields Cambridge (2000). This 17.5 is for super symmetric grand unification. On the other hand, the leading German Theoretical Physicist W. Greiner gives the value 26 as easily estimated from figure 9.11 page 377 of his famous textbook Gauge Theory of Weak Interaction published by Springer Berlin 1994. My own calculation based on Mohamed Elnaschie exact E-Infinity theory gives 26.18033989 which is very close to the value given by Greiner in his book. It seems that 17.5 must be excluded unless we are overlooking something. To go to the bottom of the discrepancy, I should refer to a remarkable paper by Mohamed Elnaschie titled Quantum gravity unification via transfinite
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisarithmetic and geometrical averaging published in Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, volume 35(2008) pp 252 256. In this paper Elnaschie uses the exact three inverse couplings of electromagnetism 60, weak force 30 and strong force 10 as idealized for the electroweak energy scale. These values lead to the inverse Summerfield constant 137 as well as three inverse couplings for pair wise unification, namely the electromagnetic and weak force 42.4, the weak force and strong force 17.3 and the electromagnetic and strong force 24.49. Subsequently, Elnaschie shows that the three inverse couplings lead to 26.18 almost exactly as the E-Infinity exact solution. The new insight is however the value of the electromagnetic and weak force namely 17.3 which is very close to that found by Weinberg. The question is therefore the following: Could Weinberg result of 17.5 be interpreted as a partial unification coupling? I would be grateful to any helpful comment.
Ayman El Okaby
Department of Physics
Alexandria -Egypt
To follow the highy quality comdey trend
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTo be El naschie or not to be that is the SCIAM question
My kingdom for a SCIAM
Even you D. Baron ( The fake and the real ones)
Jason is free to write whatever he likes. He needs not be worried about shutting him up. He enjoys what the Germans call “Narrenfreiheit”. In my rudimentary English this is something like the freedom of the fools. Nevertheless there are even more stupid people than Jason i.e. those who give him money to write this trash and those you spend time reading it, my goodself not within standing.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisElisabeth Steinbach
I am still keenly interested in a satisfactory resolution of the correct inverse coupling constant of unification of all fundamental forces. The value found by Nobel Laureate Steven Weinberg is 17.5 as given on page 192 of volume III of his book The Quantum Theory of Fields Cambridge (2000). This 17.5 is for super symmetric grand unification. On the other hand, the leading German Theoretical Physicist W. Greiner gives the value 26 as easily estimated from figure 9.11 page 377 of his famous textbook Gauge Theory of Weak Interaction published by Springer Berlin 1994. My own calculation based on Mohamed Elnaschie exact E-Infinity theory gives 26.18033989 which is very close to the value given by Greiner in his book. It seems that 17.5 must be excluded unless we are overlooking something. To go to the bottom of the discrepancy, I should refer to a remarkable paper by Mohamed Elnaschie titled Quantum gravity unification via transfinite
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisarithmetic and geometrical averaging published in Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, volume 35(2008) pp 252 256. In this paper Elnaschie uses the exact three inverse couplings of electromagnetism 60, weak force 30 and strong force 10 as idealized for the electroweak energy scale. These values lead to the inverse Summerfield constant 137 as well as three inverse couplings for pair wise unification, namely the electromagnetic and weak force 42.4, the weak force and strong force 17.3 and the electromagnetic and strong force 24.49. Subsequently, Elnaschie shows that the three inverse couplings lead to 26.18 almost exactly as the E-Infinity exact solution. The new insight is however the value of the electromagnetic and weak force namely 17.3 which is very close to that found by Weinberg. The question is therefore the following: Could Weinberg result of 17.5 be interpreted as a partial unification coupling? I would be grateful to any helpful comment.
Ayman El Okaby
Department of Physics
Alexandria -Egypt
In response to the comment of Free Legaladivic.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAre you kidding, how it is possible that El naschie does not use the internet. Pleae look at his wepage you will find that he linked the sciam webpage to his website
http://www.el-naschie.net/el-naschie-physicist.asp?site=260&lang=
According to his website
Article in Scientific American from June, 2008
and comments from oldest to newest
> link to article
The link now is inactive and of course everyone knows why??
In one of his article "P-Adic analysis and the trans nite E8 exceptional Lie
symmetry group uni cation" Chaos,Solitons and Fractals 38 (2008)612 614. One can find in the list of references
A.Leonovich,Comments on E8 unication and P-Adic numbers.http:/www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xm1=/eareth/2008/
01/22/scieinstein122.xml (10/03/2008).
If el naschie does not use internet, then who is writing his papers and putting references for Telegraph, Sciam,........
I hope the genious Free Legaladivic can explain.
I am still keenly interested in a satisfactory resolution of the correct inverse coupling constant of unification of all fundamental forces. The value found by Nobel Laureate Steven Weinberg is 17.5 as given on page 192 of volume III of his book The Quantum Theory of Fields Cambridge (2000). This 17.5 is for super symmetric grand unification. On the other hand, the leading German Theoretical Physicist W. Greiner gives the value 26 as easily estimated from figure 9.11 page 377 of his famous textbook Gauge Theory of Weak Interaction published by Springer Berlin 1994. My own calculation based on Mohamed Elnaschie exact E-Infinity theory gives 26.18033989 which is very close to the value given by Greiner in his book. It seems that 17.5 must be excluded unless we are overlooking something. To go to the bottom of the discrepancy, I should refer to a remarkable paper by Mohamed Elnaschie titled Quantum gravity unification via transfinite
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisarithmetic and geometrical averaging published in Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, volume 35(2008) pp 252 256. In this paper Elnaschie uses the exact three inverse couplings of electromagnetism 60, weak force 30 and strong force 10 as idealized for the electroweak energy scale. These values lead to the inverse Summerfield constant 137 as well as three inverse couplings for pair wise unification, namely the electromagnetic and weak force 42.4, the weak force and strong force 17.3 and the electromagnetic and strong force 24.49. Subsequently, Elnaschie shows that the three inverse couplings lead to 26.18 almost exactly as the E-Infinity exact solution. The new insight is however the value of the electromagnetic and weak force namely 17.3 which is very close to that found by Weinberg. The question is therefore the following: Could Weinberg result of 17.5 be interpreted as a partial unification coupling? I would be grateful to any helpful comment.
Ayman El Okaby
Department of Physics
Alexandria -Egypt
For the genious free legaladvice (El naschie):
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHere is one of the reference for the paper "The theory of Cantorian spacetime and high energy particle physics (an informal review)", Chaos,Solitons and Fractals xxx (2008)xxx xxx. The article still in press
51- Ambjorn J,Jurkiewicz J and Loll R.The Self-Organizing Quantum Universe.Scienti c American,July,pp.24-31 (2008).(http://www.sciam.com/
article.cfm?id=the-self-organizing-quantum-universe).
There are other three article which contain the same reference (Sciam)
1- On zero-dimensional points curvature in the dynamics of Cantorian-fractal spacetime setting and high energy particle physics
Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, In Press, Corrected Proof, Available online 5 November 2008
M.S. El Naschie
2- An irreducibly simple derivation of the Hausdorff dimension of spacetime
Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, In Press, Corrected Proof, Available online 17 September 2008
M.S. El Naschie
3- On the WittenDuff five Branes model together with knots theory and E8E8 super strings in a single fractal spacetime theory
Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, In Press, Corrected Proof, Available online 23 August 2008
M.S. El Naschie
Can the genious explain for us, how it comes that El naschie is not using the internet.
The Great man (El naschie) is puplishing backward in time. The man was used to puplish forward in time, but here the instance for puplishing backward. The great man is not concerned with time arrow, for hime time can go forward and backward even vibrates. The ritle of this amazing paper is
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOn John Nash's crumpled surface
M. S. El Naschie
Department of Mathematics,The School of Electronics and Computer Science,University of Surrey,Guildford,UK
Solvay Institute of Physics and Chemistry,University of Brussels,Belgium
Faculty of Science,Department of Astrophysics,University of Cairo,Egypt
Chaos,Solitons and Fractals xxx (2003)xxx –xxx
www.elsevier.com/locate/chaos
ARTICLE IN PRESS
Since 2003 and it is still in press. The great man wrote many nonsense things about string theory, cosmology and particle physics.
I'm interested in the pargraph where the great man telling about him self that he became a professor in a civil engineering department.
"Few years later after becoming a professor in a civil engineering department,I again had a flare up of my interest in
economics due to coming in touch with the person and work of John Kenneth Galbraith.I was taken,like everybody
else who read his books and knew the man by his wit,eloquence and humanity and I found his book the ‘‘Age of
Uncertainty ’’,thoroughly and wholly delightful [5 ].I did not know at this time that I will be working in the years to
come within the framework of the principle of uncertainty in the form enshrined in quantum physics by Heisenberg and
in classical mechanics by chaotic dynamic and fractal geometry."
Can the great man mention at which university he got the title Prof. Dr. and also explain why the article is still in press.
I'm afraid, that he might have aricles still in press from the ancient Greek time. Who knows.
Here is one thing. We have to think of General Relativity and Special Relativity as a reason that actually explains the whys of measurements. It does not explain the fact of the nature. For example when you feel the gravity force caused by the earth, you say to Einstein: -Hey man how on earth? Then Einstein graciously with his equivalence principle and say's -Yeah it’s because the contraction of space time, that you are victim of an acceleration-. Then you start to think of an actual tangible bended space and got very worried about that fact that you might be eaten by the bended space…Now comes Quantum Mechanics with Borh's-Born gang and say's I can't see how the actual mater is bended…Later the young guys of QFT comes and say well its true what you both said. --The fact is that there is some damn particle that its actually pushing you down wards, like the photons carry energy and make the electromagnetic field possible, but we don't know how to explain how comes this bloody particle-, from farther in the room one voice emerge and there is a bunch a guys saying, -Well, all is about resonant patterns-.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHere I just qoute from the comment dated Nov. 4, 2008 due to Andrei Khory
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisappeared on Sciam (this site), which is obviously due to El naschie
".....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....."
Now it comes the important question, who is Prof. L. Marek-Crnjac . The answer can be found in http://elnaschiewatch.blogspot.com/2009/03/hello-slovenia.html
Just for the record:
Leila Marek-Crnjac is a high school math teacher and she obtained her PhD in the field of pedagogical mathematics (needless to say that she fulfilled the PhD criteria due to papers published in CS&F). As for her affiliation at the "Institute of Mathematics, Physics and Mechanics", she is no longer a member of that institution and even in the past was only a part time member for the obvious reason of using her credentials for applications to science projects (see her curriculum):
http://sicris.izum.si/search/rsr.aspx?opt=1&lang=eng&id=8298
Greetings from Slovenia,
shrink
The great man using pseudo Prof. to trumpet his theory. As the great man himself is a pesudo prof., then other pseudo profs. are naturally attracted toward him.
From http://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2009/02/06/chaos-continues-in-math-journal/
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisZoran Skoda Says:
Mar 22, 2009 at 4:27 pm
Elsevier has made the worst possible decision by starting to publishing the backlog of papers which were accepted during the provable badly (or no) peer reviewed age of El Naschie and the rest of complying board. Before Elsevier could claim, well this is the editors resposibility, we BELIEVED that the peer reviewing practicies were maintained at hi level. Now they DO know of the problem, and they issues January 15 issue of chaossf with papers accepted by El Naschies board, without reexamining them for quality. This is MANIFEST ACCEPTANCE by Elsevier of LOW QUALITY STANDARDS. You know that the papers were accepted in a process doubted by majority of public scientific community, you are reviewing the future of the process but you are happy with taking over 900 papers from that old pool to print! It is unbelieable a major company, not to say world-class SCIENTIFIC publisher would ever dare to be so irresponsible!
Moreover, the number of papers accepted by around New Year was about 900, it has grown since by at least around 40 new articles. That means that the old board is still acting and that Elsevier is doing this. Instead Elsevier bans on new submissions what is an unheard practice for a journal in existance!
One should either cancel the journal or do a Hercules job of make it a quality journal. Though I do not believe the latter were easy. the rest of the board was complient to bad peer reviewing practices. Some of the members of the board confirmed in letters to me that their names were there without their prior consent. Most of others did not respond to my emails if they agreed or not with the current editorial practices as of June 2008. Now who would like to take a role of an editor in the board with such a history. The whole board needs to be replaced at minimum. But I think the chances to regain the value after being so reluctant and defending the undefendable, and prolonging the agony by publishing the badly reviewing papers, is close to zero. I received letters from many members of scientific community and the opinion in general is that chaossf has practically no chance to survive, all the damage the bad past and current practices of the board
and reluctance of Elsevier to act have done.
Zoran Skoda
Mr. Baronne, If you were not so petty, some might find you witty. Save me the embarrassment and do not ask who would find you witty. Why dont you sign with your name, An Said Elnashaie bin Loll Al Ambjorn and the web master son of Utrecht with a big head, so big that is deserves a Nobel prize. Why dont you tell us about your own achievements? Did you break into Fort Knox or just the cupboard of your ailing mother. In case of doubt, consult this site (http://thecaseofsaidelnashaie.blogspot.com/2009/01/case-of-said-elnashaie.html#comments). Best regards to your brother Jason of the Juggernauts. He needs your help badly to appear in a French cancan directed by Dr. Frankenstein or was it Einstein? So long.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf you want to steal fractal space time and to claim it is yours, you have to rewrite history. Surely you know lecture notes in Physics published by Springer. Look at the Volume edited by Heck and Perdang from France and Belgium. The book is entitled “Applying Fractals in Astronomy “ and published in 1991. This is 18 years ago Monsieur and there you find a paper by Laurent Nottale, entitled “ The fractal structure of quantum space time” , it is page 181 to page 200. The work of Mohamed El Naschie is from about the same time. The work of Garnet Ord from Canada is even much earlier. I think Dr. Baron is insulting Dr. Renate Loll and Nobel Laureate Gerardus ‘ t Hooft when he writes these compromising remarks . Even when somebody has the might he still does not have the right. At least this is the way it is in France since the French revolution. I do not think it is different in Holland. Quite honestly I do not know where Dr. Baron comes from, but he has very strange views.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMaurice Deveaux
As Gerard 't Hooft provided us with the best criteria that nicely fits the
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thiscase of El naschie as a bad theoretical physicist.
http://www.phys.uu.nl/~thooft/theoristbad.html
Another favor has also been done by Gerard 't Hooft is to provide a suitable job for El naschie in Myron Evans University (Pseudo science university). I think that university needs one has merits like those
of El naschie.
According to Gerard 't Hooft in his recent update of his page
"...
One exception I fail to resist. Recently a new University was founded: the Myron Evans University. Here, those with a fine taste for perfection can specialize and obtain PhD degrees. I won't provide the link, but I am sure it will appear right up front if you google it up."
Of course the great man El naschie can google to find the webpage of that
university.
I am still keenly interested in a satisfactory resolution of the correct inverse coupling constant of unification of all fundamental forces. The value found by Nobel Laureate Steven Weinberg is 17.5 as given on page 192 of volume III of his book The Quantum Theory of Fields Cambridge (2000). This 17.5 is for super symmetric grand unification. On the other hand, the leading German Theoretical Physicist W. Greiner gives the value 26 as easily estimated from figure 9.11 page 377 of his famous textbook Gauge Theory of Weak Interaction published by Springer Berlin 1994. My own calculation based on Mohamed Elnaschie exact E-Infinity theory gives 26.18033989 which is very close to the value given by Greiner in his book. It seems that 17.5 must be excluded unless we are overlooking something. To go to the bottom of the discrepancy, I should refer to a remarkable paper by Mohamed Elnaschie titled Quantum gravity unification via transfinite
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisarithmetic and geometrical averaging published in Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, volume 35(2008) pp 252 256. In this paper Elnaschie uses the exact three inverse couplings of electromagnetism 60, weak force 30 and strong force 10 as idealized for the electroweak energy scale. These values lead to the inverse Summerfield constant 137 as well as three inverse couplings for pair wise unification, namely the electromagnetic and weak force 42.4, the weak force and strong force 17.3 and the electromagnetic and strong force 24.49. Subsequently, Elnaschie shows that the three inverse couplings lead to 26.18 almost exactly as the E-Infinity exact solution. The new insight is however the value of the electromagnetic and weak force namely 17.3 which is very close to that found by Weinberg. The question is therefore the following: Could Weinberg result of 17.5 be interpreted as a partial unification coupling? I would be grateful to any helpful comment.
Ayman El Okaby
Department of Physics
Alexandria -Egypt
I can understand the embarrassment of Dr. Renate Loll, University of Utrecht and Dr. Jan Ambjorn from Neils Bohr Institute and their wish to divert attention to something else. The breaking news is that yet another person whose name is Palmer is supposed to have plagiarized Mohamed Elnaschies work on fractal spacetime in a new article which is supposed to be published in the proceedings of the Royal Society. Even if this is true, so what Mr. Baronne? Thus this make the behavior of two leading scientists working under the guidance of a Nobel laureate acceptable? Of course not. Or do you mean that the victim is to be blamed. This is ridiculous. How would Oscar Wilde put it Plagiarizing Elnaschies work once seems like misfortune. Plagiarizing him twice seems like negligence. May I extend the notion Plagiarizing him continuously seems like modern times where all what you need is to hire an internet expert like John Baez to do the work for you i.e. defame your competitor and close down the journals where they are publishing. Amazing brand new world!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHello El Naschie supporters! Jason here, from the El Naschie Watch blog, which El Naschie himself has criticized by name in an interview. You are warmly invited to post comments on my blog, which is unmoderated. Anything goes.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://elnaschiewatch.blogspot.com/
To EInfinity Club at 08:05 AM on 04/05/09
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOf course El naschie has a peculiar sense of humor which is evident in his numerous papers displaying his extraordinary mathematical skills. The great man showed in a single stroke
that 5= 2 x 2 + 1 and 686 = 5 x 137 + 1, his mathematical talent is Gods gift to foolish people.
The nice Einfinity club didn't mention Germany which was also involved in that conspiracy against El naschie. By the way, is there any news about the new court order against Drosser (Die Zeit article). I would like to remember Einfinity club with El naschie's humorous interpretation of quantum mechanics (Many jokes interpretation).
Finally comment from http://www.scienceblogs.de/mathlog/2008/11/chaos-bei-elsevier.php
rank zero� 27.03.09 � 12:41 Uhr
Imho, a couple of authors publishing in CSF can be blamed. They simply took advantage of the lousy peer-reviewing process and managed to publish papers that no serious mathematical journal would have accepted. They managed to prolongate their publication lists in an easy way and did harm to colleagues who worked seriously and with much effort, and at least the authors who have almost no publications except in CSF and "friendly" journals whose articles where obviously turned down elsewhere should have been very much aware of this situation.
In addition, it appears that the citation abuse was very much in common not only for El N. himself, but a whole group of CSF authors. When such manipulationa are frequently done, one shouldn't claim to be innocent.
The astonishing thing about El naschie is that he
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thiscould survive for a quit long time in Europe and remained as a Cheif editor of CS&F for almost nearly twenty years.
Also, I think he managed to damage the reputation of Cambridge to some extent by publishing numerous non sense papers using its affiliation.
Furthermore, he damaged the reputation of Nobel laureate G. Thooft when he dedicated some of his non sense papers to G. Thooft - (On quarks confinement and asymptotic freedom Chaos,Solitons and Fractals 37 (2008)1289–1291)-
, surprisingly enough Thooft kept silent about this. I think even a third class physicist wouldn't be happy if El naschie dedicated one of his non sense paper to him, and for sure he would complain and sue El naschie.
It is a tempting suggestion to invoke the issue to sue Elsevier and El naschie for damaging the reputation of scientific publishing. I think that the respectable institutes, universities and research centers that paid for that junk CS&F must sue Elsevier and El naschie and asking for penalties.
Hi EInfinity Club, thanks for you prompt and polite response to my invitation. I'm going to post it, and my response to it, on my blog.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCome on over to http://elnaschiewatch.blogspot.com EInfinity club, et. al., you got our hopes up.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisJason
Dear Mr. Jason
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou are in breach of the beginning of a beginning of an agreement even before the beginning started. The minimum one expects from a respectable site is a thorough investigation of any allegation before it is made. If you dont do that how on earth could you call yourself connected to anything called Science. Prof. Elnaschie has never met Dan Winter. Prof. Elnaschie has never been to a conference where Dan Winter was present. If you look to the site of Dan Winter you will find a polite exchange of letters. One is from Prof. Elnaschie asking him for moderation of his views. But what if he met Dan Winter? Or for that matter the Mahatma Ghandi? Havent you studied law? There is no such thing as guilt by association. This is the basis of natural justice. Second you did not refrain from the use of excitable language and loose malicious innuendos. We have nothing against a joke or a caricature but we said before that good taste is the basis of civilized friendship. Being of different opinion is no reason to spoil a good friendship. The truth is that John Baez committed a big blunder. He was asked to commit this blunder. He foolishly and without knowing the consequences charged like a bull against the wall and in the course of this action be broke his horns. Then he hired two presumptuous journalists wishing to be scientists. These are the worst type. If you dont believe me ask Nobel Laureate Murray Gell-man what he thinks of science journalists in general. If it is of any comfort to you Prof. Elnaschie spent the last ten days in the company of his most respected Nobel Laureates friend. But what if they are not Nobel Laureates? A pleasant and entertaining Nobel Laureate is the absolute exception rather than the rule. If it is of any interest to Mr. An and his crew Prof.Elnaschie dedicated many papers to many Nobel Laureates for instance, his teacher and friend Nobel Laureate Ilya Prigogine. He has many correspondences with Nobel Laureate Werner Heisenberg dating 40 years ago as well as more recent correspondence with Karl Friedrich Von Weizscker. When you decide to investigate everything we will be more than pleased to collaborate with you to discover the real scandal. The real scandal is where all the strings meet. When time comes you will know the truth and if you are not part of this conspiracy Mr. Jason, you will be shocked.
With best wishes,
EInfinity Club
Concerning the Ph. D. of the great man El naschie as it is written in his website www.el-nachie.net. He has taken his Ph. D. from university of London but if you search the university of London catalogue, as usual, no mention for him
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou will find only the thesis of his brother Elnashai, Amr Salah, http://catalogue.ulrls.lon.ac.uk/search?/aElnashai%2C+Amr+Salah./aelnashai+amr+salah/-3%2C-1%2C0%2CB/frameset&FF=aelnashai+amr+salah&1%2C1%2C
Nonlinear analysis of composite tubular joints / by Amr Salah Elnashai, 1984.
But if you checked out the "Integrated Catalogue" of the British Library. You will find the following under the entry with system number 014720109:
System number: 014720109
Cataloguing level: Minimal record
Author - personal: El Nashie, M. S.
Title: The roll of formulation in elastic buckling.
Publisher/year: [S.l.] : University of London, 1974.
Physical descr.: pp. 348.
Dissertation: Doctoral Thesis - University of London.
Reproduction note: Microfilm. 35 mm.
Added name: University of London.
Holdings (All): Details
Shelfmark: D11176/74 DSC Request
Here it comes the interesting question
Why, the Ph. D. of the great man was not listed on the online catalogue of university of London. Theses of great man like
El naschie should written in Gold and should be a source of proud for university of London.
Just an innocent question that could have undreamable answer.
From www.elnaschiewatch.blogspot.com
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisA plan to rescue CS&F. I think it would work, but pride will prevent it from being implemented.
My idea is very simple.
1. Keep El Naschie as Editor in Chief.
2. Add to the cover the small-print tagline "for papers that have no chance of being published anywhere else".
3. Rather than making a pretense of individual peer-review, require all submissions to have appeared on the arxiv for two months prior to submission.
4. Reduce the price from $4520 per year to $45.20. That should cover publication costs if authors are required to follow a strict template that avoids the expense of typesetting.
5. Unbundle it from Elsevier's higher-quality journals. Require it to be purchased separately, or demonstrate good humor and lack of bitterness by working out a deal to bundle it with The Journal of Irreproducible Results. http://www.jir.com/
That's the whole plan! There's a refreshing honesty and logic to it. In every area of commerce there are better and worse quality products, and they are distinguished by price. Why should science journals pretend to be different?
This is just a typical abstract paper for one of the greatest member of E-infinity club namely Ji-Huan He and his company.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHierarchy of wool fibers and its interpretation using E-infinity theory
Chaos, Solitons & Fractals,
In Press, Corrected Proof, Available online 9 August 2008
Ji-Huan He, Zhong-Fu Ren, Jie Fan, Lan Xu
Abstract
Why do wool fibers show excellent advantages in warmth-retaining and many other practical properties? The paper concludes that their hierarchical structure is the key. Using E-infinity theory, its Hausdorff dimension is estimated to be about 4.2325, very close to El Naschie’s E-infinity dimension, 4.2360, revealing an optimal structure for wool fibers.
I suggest for the next time that author study tefal coating and how things can't stick to it. And how this related to its fractal properties and in turn to its Hausdorff dimension. That is could be an amazing application of El naschie's E-infinity theory.
Of course this can explain that El naschie is using anti-tefal to stick forever to Elsevier even if he has set to retire.
Hi EInfinity Club. I don't use a pseudonym. I don't know who AN is. Please let me know if you find something libelous on my blog. Be specific so I can take care of it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDear Aiman, If someone sends me that paper I'll put it up with the note that it comes highly recommended. I fact I'm greedy for anything from CSF, anything as all. Please send what you've got, everybody.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAn, I always enjoy your posts. I agree it's very odd Dr. El Naschie's PhD dissertaion is so hard to obtain. I'm convinced it exists though. On the other hand, when he says he was made a full professor, he's almost certainly lying. I asked him for proof of this a long time ago and he still hasn't responded.
Jason
http://elnaschiewatch.blogspot.com
I didn't claim that El naschie has no Ph.D. , but I just wonder
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thiswhy one can't find his thesis on the online catalouge of university of London. 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. 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.
I urge the great man before publishing a new breakthrough paper shocking the establishment by his tremendous genius brain, just to number the equations in your papers. I have looked at many of your papers and I found in all of them equations are not numbered. You can just fix the program producing papers to number equations. Please acknowledge this site when you fix bugs in the program generating papers. Alternatively, you can learn latex program which automatically numerate equations. You can find many stuff about latex on http://www.tug.org/ (tex user group).
If you have any paper in CS&F at which you numbered equations please tell me.
P. S. Awaiting the reply of the great man El naschie
I didn't claim that El naschie has no Ph.D. , but I just wonder
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thiswhy one can't find his thesis on the online catalouge of university of London. 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. 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.
I urge the great man before publishing a new breakthrough paper shocking the establishment by his tremendous genius brain, just to number the equations in your papers. I have looked at many of your papers and I found in all of them equations are not numbered. You can just fix the program producing papers to number equations. Please acknowledge this site when you fix bugs in the program generating papers. Alternatively, you can learn latex program which automatically numerate equations. You can find many stuff about latex on http://www.tug.org/ (tex user group).
If you have any paper in CS&F at which you numbered equations please tell me.
P. S. Awaiting the reply of the great man El naschie
There is no numerology at all in the work of Palmer on the invariant limit set or in El Naschies VAK conjecture. They are using well known topological arguments. I doubt very much Jason understands what he is talking about. His comments show a man who does not know what topology is or in fact what numerology is.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHAHAHAHAHA Chaos, Solitons and Fractals doesn't number equations!?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAn, that's a riot. LOL :)
Jason
I didn't claim that El naschie has no Ph.D. , but I just wonder
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thiswhy one can't find his thesis on the online catalouge of university of London. 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. 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.
I urge the great man before publishing a new breakthrough paper shocking the establishment by his tremendous genius brain, just to number the equations in your papers. I have looked at many of your papers and I found in all of them equations are not numbered. You can just fix the program producing papers to number equations. Please acknowledge this site when you fix bugs in the program generating papers. Alternatively, you can learn latex program which automatically numerate equations. You can find many stuff about latex on http://www.tug.org/ (tex user group).
If you have any paper in CS&F at which you numbered equations please tell me.
P. S. Awaiting the reply of the great man El naschie
There is a silver lining to the vicious campaign against Prof. Mohamed El Naschie. We were referred to this site by our colleagues in China who hold the utmost respect for this man. They were dismayed that some people out there have made it their life long mission to attack and character assassinate him. We decided to check this man out and we started by reading and researching his scientific work. We have news for you out there! What we found is amazing. His E-Infinity theory deserves our utmost admiration. For you to understand it, you need to be well versed in mathematics. We scrutinized his mathematics and equations, and the results were amazing. Those who claim it is numerology have no clue about what this man has succeeded in doing. We agree with his advocates that this is a paradigm shift and sooner than later this man will get the recognition he deserves. We will continue to follow his work closely and we know that his work has stirred a lot of interest and we all know that no important work such as his can be acknowledged without first raising a lot of controversy. It is easy to be part of the mainstream herd. But this man is not.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI have found an amazing article due Amr El naschie (brother of M. S. Elnaschie) celebrating his brother.s 60-th brithday.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe article is published in Chaos,Solitons and Fractals 25 (2005)767 768 under the title Recollections.
Here are some short bits from the article
" ..But my brother believes that I su�er
from total lack of imagination and technological atness because I do not change disciplines every 10 years. .."
".. I would
love to lock up the said colleague with Professor El Naschie,or ...,and reveal to the former that the latter was trained as a structural engineer,and is now a pinnacle of nuclear and particle physics,amongst other things."
" He,Mohamed,is indeed brilliant,but all those who will read my article know that already.He is versatile and is a
visionary,but these are characteristics that all those who meet him conclude that he enjoys."
"I continued though to say that
although I do not see Mohamed much,I admire him from a distance;whilst I could not a �ord the same admiration to
our middle brother Saiid,who really looked after me and helped me grow up. .."
"....When I was 17,I visited Mohamed in London,and followed this by a visit to Saiid in Edinburgh.There was a hot
competition between them regarding who would be able to convince me to leave the Medical School at Cairo University
and go into engineering;civil,like Mohamed,or chemical,like Saiid. "
"This was in 1973,the year my name appeared on a paper,with Mohamed,published in the Journal of the
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics. "
"..Being Mohamed El Naschie brother is a major responsibility!You are expected to be somewhat of a genius,which
I certainly am not.OK,I still hold the dubious distinction of being the youngest full professor in Civil Engineering at
Imperial College,London,and certainly the rst,and hitherto the only,Middle Eastern full professor and Head of Sec-
tion,but how high this stacks up next to the series of professor positions that Mohamed has piled up in four continents?.."
"I am inspired along the route
of publish or perish by Mohamed's publication record (journal papers in the hundreds)and the story of Thomas
Harriot..."
I have some doubts that Amr El naschie wrote this article. This article is mentioned no where on his website https://netfiles.uiuc.edu/aelnash/www/index.htm.
The man should be proud to celebrate birthday of his brother who is considered as the most influential scientist in the history of man kind. One can even send e-mail to aelnash@uiuc.edu to get confirmation about his article.
Comments on the article of Amr El naschie
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOf course M. S. El naschie is interested in every things and he can change his field every 10 years and may be every day. But how Amr Elnashie did know that his brother a pinnacle of nuclear and particle physics,amongst other things.
Does he know what he has published in particle physics is non sense. It didn't happen to him to read by chance any of his brother's article to discover easily it is non sense. Did he discovered that in most his brother's papers equations are not numbered. How he was sure that his brother is a really brilliant one, is that impression got by reading his trivial papers.
According to Amr El naschie
" I continued though to say that
although I do not see Mohamed much,I admire him from a distance;whilst I could not a fford the same admiration to
our middle brother Saiid,who really looked after me and helped me grow up."
Why this prejudice against Saiid, can he give us more explanation.
Telling about professor's positions piled by El naschie in four continents? It is a favor to tell us where he got professor title.
you were admiring M. S. Elnaschie publishing record, do you know that he published few hundreds of non sense papers in CS&F where he is the editor in Chief abusing his editorial power.
The fraudulence of M. S. El naschie is evident even for non specialist.
Of course one should check if Amr El naschie has really written that article or not. Chaos,Solitons and Fractals 25 (2005)767 –768
The e-mail of Amr Elnaschie is aelnash@uiuc.edu
I have found an amazing article due Amr El naschie (brother of M. S. Elnaschie) celebrating his brother.s 60th birthday.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe article is published in Chaos,Solitons and Fractals 25 (2005)767 -768 under the title Recollections.
Here are some short bits from the article
" ..But my brother believes that I suffer
from total lack of imagination and technological fatness because I do not change disciplines every 10 years. .."
".. I would
love to lock up the said colleague with Professor El Naschie,or ...,and reveal to the former that the latter was trained as a structural engineer,and is now a pinnacle of nuclear and particle physics,amongst other things."
" He,Mohamed,is indeed brilliant,but all those who will read my article know that already.He is versatile and is a
visionary,but these are characteristics that all those who meet him conclude that he enjoys."
"I continued though to say that
although I do not see Mohamed much,I admire him from a distance;whilst I could not afford the same admiration to
our middle brother Saiid,who really looked after me and helped me grow up. .."
"....When I was 17,I visited Mohamed in London,and followed this by a visit to Saiid in Edinburgh.There was a hot
competition between them regarding who would be able to convince me to leave the Medical School at Cairo University
and go into engineering;civil,like Mohamed,or chemical,like Saiid. "
"This was in 1973,the year my name appeared on a paper,with Mohamed,published in the Journal of the
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics. "
"..Being Mohamed El Naschie's brother is a major responsibility!You are expected to be somewhat of a genius,which I certainly am not.OK,I still hold the dubious distinction of being the youngest full professor in Civil Engineering at Imperial College,London,and certainly the first,and hitherto the only,Middle Eastern full professor and Head of Section,but how high this stacks up next to the series of professor positions that Mohamed has piled up in four continents?.."
"I am inspired along the route
of publish or perish by Mohamed's publication record (journal papers in the hundreds)and the story of Thomas
Harriot..."
I have some doubts that Amr El naschie wrote this article.
This article is mentioned no where on his website https://netfiles.uiuc.edu/aelnash/www/index.htm.
The man should be proud to celebrate birthday of his brother who is considered as the most influential scientist in the history of man kind. One can even send e-mail to aelnash@uiuc.edu to get confirmation about his article.
Comments on the article of Amr El naschie
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOf course M. S. El naschie is interested in every things and he can change his field every 10 years and may be every day. But how Amr Elnashie did know that his brother is a pinnacle of nuclear and particle physics,amongst other things.
Does he know what his brother has published in particle physics is non sense. It didn't happen to him to read by chance any of his brother's article to discover easily it is non sense. Did he discovered that in most of his brother's papers equations are not numbered. How he was sure that his brother is a really brilliant one, is that impression got by reading his trivial papers.
According to Amr El naschie
" I continued though to say that
although I do not see Mohamed much,I admire him from a distance; whilst I could not a fford the same admiration to
our middle brother Saiid,who really looked after me and helped me grow up."
---Why this prejudice against Saiid, can he give us more explanation.
Telling about professor's positions piled by El naschie in four continents? It is a favor to tell us where he got professor title.
you were admiring M. S. Elnaschie publishing record, do you know that he published few hundreds of non sense papers in CS&F where he was the editor in Chief abusing his editorial power.
The fraudulence of M. S. El naschie is evident even for non specialist.
Of course one should check if Amr El naschie has really written that article or not. Chaos,Solitons and Fractals 25 (2005)767 –768
The e-mail of Amr Elnaschie is aelnash@uiuc.edu
Amr S. Elnashai, Ph.D.
Bill and Elaine Hall Endowed Professor of Civil Engineering
Director Mid-America Earthquake Center
Director NEES-MUSTSIM Facility
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering
University of Illinois
2129e Newmark Civil Engineering Laboratory, MC-250
205 North Mathews Avenue
Urbana, Illinois 61801
Phone: (217) 265-5497
Fax: (217) 265-8040
Email: aelnash@uiuc.edu
https://netfiles.uiuc.edu/aelnash/www/