El Naschie Discussion

[deleted]

Dear E-Infinity,

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

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

Have Fun!

Ray

[deleted]

Dear E-infinity

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

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

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

[deleted]

E-Infinity & all:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tom

[deleted]

Dear Tom,

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

Have you read Len Malinowski's ideas at

http://www.scalativity.com/

I would like to hear your opinion.

Have Fun!

Ray

[deleted]

Ray,

Yes, I have visted Len Malinowski's site. While I appreciate that he is straightforward in his assumptions, I don't agree with scale dependence and I don't agree with infinite matter-energy duration.

We can have a continuous field universe that is finite but unbounded, and still derive all the observational consequences, including fractal shapes, as a discrete model assuming fractals as primary. The continuous field model, however, does not force us to rewrite known physics.

There is an unbroken line of physics knowledge evolution from Newton to Einstein to Hawking to Witten. Not only do I not find it necessary to get off that train, I am convinced that quantum field theory will mature just as relativity has, by extending the models with new mathematics. Brendan Foster said elsewhere that string theory has been overwhelmed by phenomenology -- perhaps. However, theory and experiment have never been evenly paced in the history of science. One always moves ahead of the other for a period.

Tom

[deleted]

Dear Tom,

It seems to me that you, Lawrence, Florin and I have not yet given up on String Theory despite what Brendan thinks. Brendan talks about how there are more jobs for phenomenologists to build effective models. My friend, Prof Xerxes Tata at the U. of Hawaii offered me a post-doc job years ago to do such, but I turned him down because I wanted to build my family and some stability. Ironically, my training was in phenomenological models and yet I was eventually drawn to String Theory anyway.

I could formulate my model in terms of Fibonacci's sequence and not necessarily require the Golden Ratio and scale dependence. My thought-process is that "A 'stable infinity' (such as Dirac's Large Number of 10^40) can exist because fractals exist." In my opinion, we are working with a finite multiverse that has a finite number of scale dependences. A power of Dirac's Large Number prevents the multiverse from becoming infinite. If the observed Universe/multiverse is just a speck of fractal dust, then infinity is encompassed in the collection of specks of dust that we will never be able to see. Perhaps we are separated from those other specks by Dirac's Large Number? Perhaps different specks have different sizes (and different effective Large Numbers)?

Have Fun!

Ray

[deleted]

Ray,

When one thinks about it, string theory is not that old. It's only been since the 70s, I think, for Nambu's cosmic strings, and only since the late 80s that supersymmetric strings took hold.

I know that people get impatient, and that a whole generation of physicists has grown up expecting to do experiments to test string theory, and now they're stuck doing mathematics instead, if they stayed in the field. And yes, I've read (and enjoyed) Lee Smolin's books and Peter Woit's book and a host of other well-reasoned criticisms of string theory.

Yet, it must remain to reason that string theory is a rationalist's choice, in the rationalist enterprise called science. Of course, the argument is most often made in the other direction -- that the competing theories are rational while string theory is only mathematics, and at worst -- recreational mathematics. I reject that argument, on these grounds:

1. The intersection of theory with experiment is in some respects a matter of time and luck. The geometry for general relativity (4 dimensional Riemannian) was around for many years before it was appropriated for physics, and even at that, one could not imagine that confirmation was eminent. Minkowski space is not an easy concept.

2. Mathematical completeness. Regardless of the experimental possibilities, Einstein was confident in the physical correctness of his theories because they led from first principles and minimum assumptions to the broadest conclusions possible in a continuous universe, without contradicting Newtonian physics while specifically identifying the limit.

3. Physical intuition. Our experience with continuous function physics is our natural experience.. We have a great deal of experimental success with particle events in a moment of time; however, our three dimensional brain-minds and the four dimensional world in which they are embedded is an apparent continuum. As Einstein said, any unifying theory must explain this apparent reality. We can't simply ignore it and go on assuming the next thing we think is a physically real causative agent. We should work with what we have, first.

4. Leibniz's continuity principle. I was struck by what Hermann Weyl wrote in Philosophy of Mathematuics and Natural Science (1949) when introducing Riemann's n-dimensional manifold. "The notions of dimensionality and sense are not restricted to metric Euclidean or affine space ... only in the infinitely small may we expect to encounter the elementary and uniform laws, hence the world must be ocmprehended through its behavior in the infinitely small."

That's my story, and I'm sticking to it. For the time being. :-)

So far as a stable infinity -- well, I think rather the opposite. Perhaps fractals might be a reflection of the stability of the universe (though I prefer the term metastable); I am not convinced that they are physically real.

Tom

[deleted]

E-Infinity,

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

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

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

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

Tom

[deleted]

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

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

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

http://elnaschiewatch.blogspot.com/2010/03/brotherhood-criticizing-el-naschie-is.html

Jason

[deleted]

Dear E-infinity

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

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

Anonymous

"No one can take us out of the E-infinite paradise created for us by El naschie, I see it but I can't believe it"

Ping-Bong He

" El nascheism is a new brand of physical and mathematical theories that always flourishes into gold, for example golden quantum field theory, golden differential

geometry, golden topology, golden market etc.... The essence of the idea is to make gold more cheap that could solve the global economic crisis beside scientific ones ."

Ed. Nash (From the game of life)

[deleted]

E-Infinity 19

Part 2 of Communication No. 17

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

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

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

Goodbye for now but not for long.

[deleted]

Dear Friends,

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

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

Have Fun!

Ray

[deleted]

Dear E-infinity

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

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

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

[deleted]

Helmoholtz - Helm Holtz, Helm Holz ...

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

[deleted]

In one of his numerous fascinating articles which he dedicated to Gerardus tHooft and titled "On quarks confinement and asymptotic freedom"

(Chaos,Solitons and Fractals 37 (2008)1289-1291)

The great man El naschie gave a new miraculous explanation for confinement. But unfortunately the great man doesn't know enough physics, nor enough math, to get into sucha deep topic. The man has clearly a big confusion between the number of flavors and number of generations. According to him

page 1290 "...This term appear as 33 -2 f where f is the number of fermion-anti fermion loops considered...." where the great man meant the one loop beta function. In the same page one finds the expression of the one loop beta function b= 33- 2 N_f/12 Pi " .... For a number of generation equal to that of the standard model,namely N_f =3 one .nds b =0.716197....". But to the knowledge of El Naschie N_f should be interpreted as the number of flavors not the number of generations.

Maybe the great man can check this in any standard textbook on the subject

or the one he used which is the first reference listed at the end of his article.

Another extraordinary achievement of El Naschie is his freshman explanation for the confinement phenomenon. In page 1291, the great man gave us his magic explanation for confinement "... We cannot see quarks for the same reason that we cannot see real water at +300 degree centigrade or - 30 degree

centigrade. In both cases we can see vapor or ice and we know it was water but we cannot see water......"

Let me ask the great man a technical question, if your approach is a non-perturbative and can cope only with the one loop expression of beta function. What about the other contributions to beta function namely two loop, three loop and four loop do you interpret them as Trans-infinite corrections. To your knowledge the four loop correction to beta function appeared in 1997, which means you can not find it in the old edition of your first reference

Yndurain FJ.The theory of quark and gluon interaction.Berlin:Springer;1992.

By now there is the fourth edition 2006, and you can give a look at.

The astonishing thing is that El Naschie uses just very elementary math operations like addition, subtraction, multiplication and division. Maybe in this particular paper he was a little more advanced and used the logarithm. That is just a pedagogical trick to make dummy people understand. On the top of all these, El Naschie explains low energy phenomena(relatively) using Planck scale language (let us not say physics!).

Now, let us ask the following interesting question: if the great man El

naschie dedicates this article to Gerardus tHooft (Nobel prize laureate), then what has Gerardus tHoof dedicated to him? Although the question seems difficult, tHooft has made it easier for us. In his webpage tHooft gave an account of How to Become Bad theoretical

Physicists.(http://www.phys.uu.nl/~thooft/theoris

tbad.html).The content of this page was of course dedicated to every successful case. tHooft did not mention any name but El Naschie can easily recognize himself as a champion of this webpage.

At last, we argue the great man to devote part of his time to learn proper math and physics (although it is toooo late now!).

[deleted]

Dear Anonymous,

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

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

Have Fun!

Ray

[deleted]

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

*history of science

*optics

*textiles

*biochemistry

*high school math

*religion and philosophy

*hotel management

*structural engineering (the Great Man himself)

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

[deleted]

Dear Jason,

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

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

Have Fun! Be Nice!

Ray

[deleted]

Ray,

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

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

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

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

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

[deleted]

Dear Jason,

FQXi is a science blog. I would prefer to keep this blog focussed more clearly on the science aspects please, and not personal or political aspects. El Naschie Watch is dedicated to disclosing all of the dirty details that you can find about El Naschie. You don't need to duplicate that effort here. I check in on the Watch occasionally.

I used my real name (rather than the popular names like Anonymous) on El Naschie Watch so that you would know my credentials, and know that I am at least willing to listen to El Naschie's ideas.

But I still don't think I truly know you. I jokingly called you Jason Starbucks, but I don't even know for sure that your first name is Jason. Perhaps you fear that El Naschie's lawyers will shut you down. That is not my concern.

I consider myself a peace-maker with a thirst for knowledge.

Have Fun!

Ray

[deleted]

Communication No. 20

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

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

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

[deleted]

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

[deleted]

Anonymous of Apr. 2, 2010 @ 16:48 GMT isn't Said Elnashai.

« Previous Page Next Page »