El Naschie Discussion

They are waiting, according to their statement, for David Clark to answer an unsigned scientific report by the elite of Theoretical Physics worldwide written in pigeon English which implies pigeon brains and pigeon physics. Does anyone expect a respectable person to respond to such nonsense! Look at the high standards of Scientific American and Nature. Look at how they conduct their blogs and comments - no censorship and also no nonsense. Dr. John Baez you can always learn from your mistakes.

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.

Ayman Elokaby

Dept. of Physics

University of Alexandria

Egypt

If 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

I 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

The 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

I 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

You 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.

Suppose 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 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

It 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.

Cheer envy has brought the people at the n-Category caf� to a state of hallucination. If you dont believe it, just log into their site and see the great discoveries they have found. Post office addresses, email addresses and what have you. Truly grandiose stuff. All that because it takes only a golden bullet to kill Mohamed El Naschie. Didnt Lawrence of Arabia say something similar after he freed Aqaba

Yes 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.

I 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.

John 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.

What 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.

I have watched for a while how the plot against Prof. El Naschie is unfolding. I see clearly that his main mistake is that he is not amused by the sight of people plagiarizing his work. It is this and nothing else which has motivated the despicable actions of John Baez and his fellow conspirators from the n-Category Caf�. They smuggled their advertisements into Nature. They dragged Lisi into it. They attempt to drag good people with good reputations to help them in their smear campaign. It is all for the money. Research funding is short so you grab what you can. It is interesting to see analogy with the oil thieves. You want oil free of charge so you start slandering an entire country and invent stories about weapons of mass destruction. Now you want to steal the work of El Naschie in order to get a King Faisal prize or even more, then you only need to slander him. Accuse him of being an Editor in Chief. After that, all is very simple. You just help yourself and publish the stolen goods where you like, in Nature or Physics Review or Classical and Quantum Gravity. The behavior of these people is truly revolting. I truly regret the day I became a scientist, to become one of those people. I hope you are not going to sensor these comments and I hope that Nature and Google report it so that the world knows about the filth which the n-Category Caf� is inundating us with. However I am expecting that this site of Scientific American will be closed very soon on the orders of you know who. This is the freedom of information in the age of the internet and blogs dictatorship.

To know more about the criminal record of John Baez as a slanderer and defamatory of the first n-Category Café class, please log in to http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?m=200610. John Baez is a criminal with a criminal record hiding in the clothes of a mathematical physicist. He admitted on his own blog that he character assassinates people for money. He said wordly, and you can read it, 'To character assassinate Prof. Edward Witten of Princeton you cannot afford it, you have to pay a lot of money but to character assassinate Prof. Mohamed El Naschie is reasonably priced.' His words, it is easy. When you read that remember this guy calls himself a professor in Riverside University, California, USA. Goodness gracious, what kind of world are we living in.

One final note before I sign off: We need say nothing further about John Baez but refer you to what Einstein thinks of him! Needless to say, it is not a lot. Have a look at this site for yourself. It puts all this man's ramblings into perspective. Perhaps John is under the impression he is God himself?

http://physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=2254.

Mohamed El Naschie is the elder brother, teacher and friend of Amr Elnashai, Director of the largest earthquake engineering centre in the USA at Urbana, Champagne. 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 ia a famous professor at Pensilvania 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.

In volume one, issue one of Chaos, Solitons & Fractals the founding Editor in Chief Prof. Mohamed El Naschie set out aims, objectives and the philosophy of the journal almost two decades ago. In his Editorial he wrote that it is an interdisciplinary journal in the lost traditions of people like Leonardo da Vinci and Poincare. He said it would be off center and tolerant with an emphasis on applications of nonlinear dynamics. The man seems to have remained faithful to his project. You can read it all on Elsevier's Science Direct site. It sometimes helps to read and understand before one embarks on a rampage.

As mentioned in an earlier comment, here is the Editorial for the first issue:

Today, it must be difficult to find a scientist of stature who would deny the influence of the broad sweep of developments in science, philosophy or even art on his specialized research. Ludwig Boltzmann, founder of statistical mechanics, gave a good example of this when he proposed to name the 19th century, the century of Charles Darwin - not of electricity nor of steam. Likewise Robert May, who recognized deterministic chaos in population dynamics and economic cycles, is a physicist not a demographer nor an economist. I cannot see such new discoveries arising except from thinkers with an

interdisciplinary stance. Of course, there have been times when there were practical benefits in the narrow view. In the early days of the Royal Society it was virtually forbidden to talk about the grand design and philosophical issues. Scientists and practical men took refuge in the absolute objectivity of specialized science in order

to counterbalance the misuse of metaphysics. Nevertheless there have been frequent dissenters even among rigorous modem mathematicians. George Cantor, for instance, regarded metaphysics as a most important part of his work on transfinite sets, which is a cornerstone of today's nonlinear science. Cantor reluctantly eliminated philosophical reasoning from his papers and only at the insistence of his friend Mittag-Leffler, the Editor of Acfu Mathemafica. It was Thomas Kuhn and Paul Feyerabend who dealt a final blow to the superficial mathematical objectivity based on the narrow view of science. They showed how objectivity has to be understood in a global cultural context. This point might be nicely illustrated by the connection between Prigogine's early fascination with history and the revolution he initiated in irreversible non-equilibrium thermodynamics,

another cornerstone of nonlinear science. Similarly, Mitchell Feigenbaum came to universal behaviour in nonlinear maps from electrical engineering via nuclear physics. His interest in mathematical physics is rivalled only by his passionate interest in Goethe, Mahfous and Puccini. In an even wider context, I believe that political science would have looked very different if Toynbee and Spengler had known about the possibility of complete nonperiodicity in a completely deterministic system. It seems that history has made a full rotation. We understand now that returning to interdisciplinary thinking may hold the key to the future. Prigogine among others has contributed essentially to our understanding of this point. Five years ago it seemed that a very high level, scientifically tolerant and wide ranging periodical might help a little in restoring the scientific traditions of people like D'Vinci, Gauss and Poincare. After some delay, that eccentric thought is now reality. I would have liked to have taken the credit for the dedicated work which has made this journal possible. Alas, it is not even remotely so. As a person who worked mainly in engineering design, management and politics, I take a broad and serious interest in nonlinear science and have merely suggested an obvious

idea. Almost everything else in the creation of this journal is the work of the numerous members of the Editorial Board: mathematicians, physicists and engineers, who are well known internationally. Some of them are the pioneers who laid the foundation of the subject. I am particularly grateful to Professors P.C. Mllller, E. Kreutzer, Y. Ichikawa, G. Casati, G. Schmidt, A. Jeffrey, G. Rega, H. 0. Peitgen, T. Kapitaniak, C. Grebogi and G. Herrmann. The journal would have remained only an idea without the generous support and encouragement given by Professors Sir Herman Bondi, I. Prigogine, B. Chirikov,

Y. Ueda, 0. Rossler and Sir Brian Pippard. Lack of space prevents me from mentioning the role of every member of the Editorial Board but to all of them I give my deep and sincere appreciation, especially to my lifelong friend H E Professor S. Al Athel for his unstinting support of the project. The scientific policy of our journal is mainly the responsibility of the Honorary Editors and the regional and associate Editors, who will review this policy from time to n.me as necessary. The Editorial Board on the other hand support and guide the practical business of publishing the journal, refereeing papers and

encouraging the submission of manuscripts to the journal.

The journal emphasis is on applications. However, and in accordance with our general philosophy, theoretical, experimental and numerical studies of a fundamental nature will also be encouraged to give a balanced picture of current advances in nonlinear science.

Our publishers have allocated a generous number of pages and are willing to print illustrations in colour to enhance the clarity of presentation. The refereeing will be rigorous but rapid and publication will be fast.

In conclusion allow me a few informal words at the risk of appearing facetious. I. Stewart wittily remarked in his delightful book Does God Play Dice? that anyone who thinks in terms of a model stripped to the bare essentials, such as E. Lorenz's model of climate, becomes a mathematician. Consequently he concluded, chaos was discovered by mathematicians. To that I would like modestly to remark that since H. Poincare, the undisputed first discoverer of chaos, was trained first in engineering, following the

Napoleonic traditions, then it follows that chaos was discovered by engineers, a word which derives from ingenuity. At a minimum let us agree that there is room for all sorts of creative thinking, at least in this journal.

I sincerely hope that this will be a truly interdisciplinary journal which is not only useful, applications oriented and informative, but also true to what must be the prime objectives of life, elevating and enjoyable. Judging by the first issue it seems we are well on our way to achieving just that.

M. S. El Naschie