What Is Ultimately Possible in Physics? by Stephen Wolfram

Ok two weeks is long enough for me take a hint. Good luck in the contest.

James

Sorry about several typographic mistakes in my commeny of ocy 14 that awaits reactions/responses!

Hello dear Mr Wolfram,

Nice to know you .

I didn't know your work .I saw in this thread a post by Ray Munroe about Wolfram Research .Very very very interesting this architecture .

Like a taxonomy of all .I congratulate you for this platform .Very relevant about the classment ,and thus our utilisation of fundamentals .

The future of our technology is fascinating .

Best Regards

Steve

Dear Dr. Wolfram,

As you probably know the establishment was sneering at some of your work as being numerology. Clearly the establishment or at least part of it did not know what they were talking about. Those who have traditionally worked starting from the Lagrangian could not possibly understand the approach of people like Penrose or your good self. Those poor fellows who spent the better part of their life trying to learn quantum field theory and all the no-go theorems attached to it, are again and again horrified when after a long or short time it is discovered that the no-go theorems do not apply. A very common trait is to confuse number theory with numerology. In this connection I would like to recall the furore which met Mohamed El Naschie's proposal that the background radiation is connected to a Menger sponge geometry of spacetime. Fifteen years after his proposal the loop quantum mechanics community is suddenly discovering that their theory can be embedded in a Menger sponge. If it were not so sad, it would be really funny. Isn't that exactly what Mohamed El Naschie proposed and was laughed out of court for by the same community? Will we all ever learn to respect everybody's point of view? Will we all ever learn from our past mistakes of underestimating people just because they are different? I for one find your last book a different kind of science, not only different but magnificent.

Ernie

Dear Ernie Bohm,

I just learned from you that Cantor dust was suggested to solve the problems of physics. I looked into

M.S. El Naschie A review of E infinity theory and the mass spectrum of high energy particle physics.Chaos, Solitons and Fractals 19 (2004)209-236.

Meanwhile the year 2010 is approaching, and I expect the LHC not to find compelling evidence for SUSY - if my humble suspicions are correct.

Be not mislead by my hesitation to accept Cantor's naive set theory as long as it has admittedly not a single tenable basis and there is no application for aleph_2.

I am pointing to a mistake that has nothing to do with set theory.

Given Mohammed El Naschie is correct, will the Higgs boson be found?

Regards,

Eckard

Dear Dr. Eckard,

I am a theoretical physicist, not a mathematician. None the less I learned from Bruno Augenstein that set theory can be applied to quarks. Augenstein published many papers in Chaos, Solitons & Fractals probably he unfortunately disappeared from the scientific arena probably due to old age. He used to work with Murray Gellman and he had a passion for set theory. I expect that the Higgs will be there whether or not Mohamed El Naschie is correct. The transfinite set theory of El Naschie tries to set more stringent limits on the number of Higgs but it is by no mean the other theory which predicts Higgs. There are a few papers in the 2009 issue of Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, some by El Naschie giving an indication that at a minimum one particle should be found. This particle is most probably the Higgs. Similarly inclined non-mainstream people like Garrett Lisi made very similar predictions like Mohamed El Naschie. The establishment treated Lisi fare worse than they did El Naschie. At least El Naschie's financial security and livelihood was never threatened. There are two versions of E8 exceptional Lie Group. The Lisi version and the transfinite version proposed by El Naschie. The difference between the two is fundamental but from a practical view point, the difference is almost irrelevant. To answer your question in a straight forward way after all that, the answer is yes, I expect one Higgs boson will be found. Mohamed El Naschie predicts that the mass will be about 169 gega electron volt. I am sure about the particle but I am not sure about the mass.

Regards,

Ernie

Dear Ernie Bohm,

Why should we expect the world to be digital if not even the ratio between diameter and circumference of a circle is rational? Stephen Wolfram claims that the quadrature of the circle has been solved. He means that there is no practical need for a higher than available accuracy of approximation. However, I cannot confirm that pi can be calculated for good.

As an engineer I learned to measure and draw the far field of a charge thought to extending endlessly into space. This does not fit into the drawer of any set theory.

Nonetheless I will look for Bruno Augenstein and Garrett Lisi. Thank you for the hints.

Regards,

Eckard

Bruno Augenstein died in 2005. I guess: His antimatter rocket will not work.

Eckard

These El naschie and Huan are frauds.

You can consult

Integrity Under Attack:

The State of Scholarly Publishing

By Douglas N. Arnold

http://www.ima.umn.edu/~arnold/siam-columns/integrity-under-attack.pdf

Rumors of editor and journal misconduct have dominated the highly publicized case of the applied math journal Chaos, Solitons and Fractals (CSF), published by Elsevier. As reported in a 2008 article in Nature,[2] "Five of the 36 papers in the December issue of Chaos, Solitons and Fractals alone were written by its editor-in-chief, Mohamed El Naschie. And the year to date has seen nearly 60 papers written by him appear in the journal." In fact, of the 400 papers by El Naschie indexed in Web of Science, 307 were published in CSF while he was editor-in-chief. This extremely high rate of selfpublication by the editor-in-chief led to charges that normal standards of peer-review were not upheld at CSF; it has also had a large effect on the journal's impact factor. (Thomson Reuters calculates the impact factor of a journal in a given year as C/A, where A is the number of articles published in the journal in the preceding two years, and C is the number of citations to those articles from articles indexed in the Thomson Reuters database and published in the given year.) El Naschie's papers in CSF make 4992 citations, about 2000 of which are to papers published in CSF, largely his own. In 2007, of the 65 journals in the Thomson Reuters category "Mathematics, Interdisciplinary Applications," CSF was ranked number 2.

Another journal whose high impact factor raises eyebrows is the International Journal of Nonlinear Science and Numerical Simulation (IJNSNS), founded in 2000 and published by Freund Publishing House. For the past three years, IJNSNS has had the highest impact factor in the category "Mathematics, Applied." There are a variety of connections between IJNSNS and CSF. For example, Ji-Huan He, the founder and editor-in-chief of IJNSNS, is an editor of CSF, and El Naschie is one of the two co-editors of CSF; both publish copiously, not only in their own journals but also in each other's, and they cite each other frequently.

Let me describe another element that contributes to IJNSNS's high impact factor. The Institute of Physics (IOP) publishes Journal of Physics: Conference Series (JPCS). Conference organizers pay to have proceedings of their conferences published in JPCS, and, in the words of IOP, "JPCS asks Conference Organisers to handle the peer review of all papers." Neither the brochure nor the website for JPCS lists an editorial board, nor does either describe any process for judging the quality of the conferences. Nonetheless, Thomson Reuters counts citations from JPCS in calculating impact factors. One of the 49 volumes of JPCS in 2008 was the proceedings of a conference organized by IJNSNS editor-in-chief He at his home campus, Shanghai Donghua University. This one volume contained 221 papers, with 366 references to papers in IJNSNS and 353 references to He. To give you an idea of the effect of this, had IJNSNS not received a single citation in 2008 beyond the ones in this conference proceedings, it would still have been assigned a larger impact factor than any SIAM journal except for SIAM Review.

You can check yours self a typical paper for Huan using E-infinity theory

Hierarchy of wool fibers and its interpretation using E-infinity theory

Chaos, Solitons & Fractals,

Chaos,Solitons and Fractals 41 (2009)1839 -1841

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.

The same article again with little modifications

Hierarchy of Wool Fibers and Fractal Dimensions

International Journal of Nonlinear Sciences and Numerical Simulation,9(3),293-296, 2008

http://works.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1037&context=ji_huan_he

Abstract

Wool fiber shows excellent advantages in warmth-retaining and many other practical properties possibly

due to its hierarchical structure. Its fractal dimension of wool fiber is calculated which is very close to the

Golden Mean, 1.618. The present study might provide a new interpretation for the reason why wool fiber

has so many excellent properties.

You can notice the confilict between the two abstracts, in the first fibre wool

has dimension 4.2325 (which is greater than the embedding space) and in the second it is 1.618. I hope El naschie can explain these remarkable results.

I hope to have answers from the great supporters of E-infinity theory

(Ernie Bohm, Eckard, ...........)--> all in one (all in El naschie)

Fred, I agree that it is perhaps not sound if "Conference organizers pay to have proceedings of their conferences published in ..."

However, why do you consider me a supporter of E-infinity theory?

Eckard

Dear Eckard ,

You see clear,more I read your words more I see pragmatism .The rationality seems thus the best road fortunally for the foundamentals sciences .

A model or a theory will take always its sense in the pure physicality with its specifics numbers and constants limits .The physical referential seems the main part of the confusions .The topology thus is specific inside a closed system more the motion and the evolutive point of vue .If the maths extrapolations utilize a false referential or a topology without real physicality thus we can understand the confusions about some models .

A model must consider all centers of interest furthermore and be in correlation with the foundamentals equations .

The sciences need limits and foundamentals .There the maths take all their sense but only if the objective referential is correlated .

Regards

Steve

What about the program supermaxine.Supermaxine runs on any computer and renders that computer a superthinker.

You can add random physics equations in a spreadsheet 1ODD+ 1 EVEN= 2 ODD.

And 2 ODD+ 2 EVEN= 4 EVEN.

And you can express the two answers for everything Ying Yang as one answer 1/3 CUCUMBER+ 1/3 GREEN APPLE+ 1/3 GREEN BANANA= 1 GREEN SALAD SANDWHICH.

So you can go on adding the answers to 2+2=4 in 1/3s until you reduce millions of equations to one equation for everything.

The program supermaxine can print out for all of time for hundreds of years coming up with a new E=MC^2 type breakthrough every day.

The equations can be divided by four to see if they balance for one.

If they don't balance that doesn't mean they are useless just not conventional math....

Just set up Suprmaxine Wolfram and import equations at random form wikkapedia using maths type 6.

And print in your office reams of paper with single answers for everything reduced from thousands of equations that you begin with and end up with one equation for everything.

Steve

It is interesting that everyone is now talking about the golden mean and the golden mean E8. Mohamed El Naschie was the first to intimate the relationship between E8 and the golden mean and subsequently introduced a fuzzy E8 based again on the golden mean. He work does not only apply to the Ising model which was tested experimentally in the Helmholtz Center in Berlin but to everything else as well. You could say he found a general theory based on the golden mean for high energy physics. Some call it quantum golden field theory. You can read much more about it in details from a very accessible short review The theory of Cantorian spacetime and high energy particle physics (an informal review) published in Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, 41, 2009, p. 2635-2646.

from http://martialculture.com/blog/2010/01/the-golden-ratio-and-

quantum-mechanics/

El naschie is a real spark in the human written history, he is startling . Al his predictions based on E-infinity theory are well verified. Among many and just to name:

1-The well experimentally verified results about fiber wool pioneered by Huan. Who showed that the Hausdorff dimension of fiber wool is to be about 4.2325, very close to El Naschie's E-infinity dimension, 4.2360. According to Huan this reveals an optimal structure for wool fibers. This is an easy proved fact and it doesn't need high energy.

Hierarchy of wool fibers and its interpretation using E-infinity theory

Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, Volume 41, Issue 4, 30 August 2009, Pages 1839-1841

Ji-Huan He, Zhong-Fu Ren, Jie Fan, Lan Xu

2- A remarkable achievement of El naschie is his unique extra ordinary talent in revealing a deep connection between double slit experiment and particle physics. That is really a breakthrough in the field has never been acheived.

The two-slit experiment as the foundation of E-infinity of high energy physics

Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, Volume 25, Issue 3, August 2005, Pages 509-514

M.S. El Naschie

3- El naschie is gifted in doing simple calculations and getting non-perturbative results. While ordinary people can get results by using supper computer in a one year, El naschie get the same results straight forward by counting on his fingers without using computer at all. These are due his GOLDEN FINGERS.

On quarks confinement and asymptotic freedom

Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, Volume 37, Issue 5, September 2008, Pages 1289-1291

M.S. El Naschie

Quarks confinement

Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, Volume 37, Issue 1, July 2008, Pages 6-8

M.S. El Naschie

4- With a simple rope with knots El naschie could derive the spectrum of possible Elementary particles, and realy this is the discovery of the century.

Any one can just bring a rope with knots and could easily testify El naschie's conjecture.

Fuzzy multi-instanton knots in the fabric of space-time and Dirac's vacuum fluctuation

Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, Volume 38, Issue 5, December 2008, Pages 1260-1268

El naschie may be the greatest thinker in the history of mankind and his theory is the most important discovery since the invention of wheel. El naschie maybe the most remarkable event after cosmic big bang. His theory can describe every thing after big bang and I'm sure El naschie will extend his theory to accommodate what has been before big bang. Please don't wonder it is an E-infinity theory that could deal with such a long history of time.

Hi Hoffman,

Ther golden mean is just a irrational which helps to build like many constants and irrationalities around us.

E8 is false and a big joke in the sciences community.

The reality is a physicality, a pure physicality.

Regards

Steve

Hi,

The problem with E infinity is the uniqueness and the applications of the infinity on this uniquenes which has a finite serie.

I respect the thinker indeed and his creativity.But I don't agree about several conclusions about the Universe.

The fratal is finite anc correlated with the sphere in its primordial divisibility giving the uniqueness of all things.

God do not play with dices in an ocean of universes.

Regards

Steve

What, exactly, do we mean by 'number'?

The human term 'number' and the concepts of a counting system are descriptions of difference between topologically whole areas. 'Two fish' decribes two discreet entities within a set 'fish'. What we call number theory is the detailed analysis of how areas of difference within topologically whole entities organise efficiently within that entity.

The differences described however are not the result of human numbering, human numbering is a classification of already existing areas of difference within a given set. A number of fish existed, in an awful lot of discreetly different ways, before the human number system. If we insist that the different areas only existed as areas of discreet difference after they were perceived to, we are what is commonly termed 'creationist'.

It is accepted that the universe (by definition) is a topologically whole entity. Physics is the analysis of the areas of disceet differences, and how they interact, combine and divide within the topologically whole universe. In physics these areas of difference, and the way they 'organise' are treated as the results of naturally-occurring phenomena. Physics has always used mathematical tools to analyse these 'physical' areas of difference, and many words have been written about the miraculous coincidence that the language of mathematics is so well suited to do such analyses.

but instead of numbers being miraculously suited to describing the universe; what WE call number is how the universe 'describes' its differences.

the relationship between the 'naturally-occurring areas of discreet difference in the topologically whole universe, and their behaviours' and 'human numbering system, number theory and mathematics' is the equivalent of the relationship between 'the naturally-occurring force between masses' and what we call 'the theory of gravity'.

relationship N->n

equivalent to

relationship G->g

where the capital letter represents a natural phenomenon and the lower-case represents the human analysis of the natural phenomenon.

The implications are that the naturally-occurring processes that we call 'number theory' will result in the naturally-occurring processes that we call 'quantum mechanics' and further to all other naturally occurring processes that we eventually call 'physics'.

If the universe IS a topologically whole entity, and everything within that universe is composed of various fractions of the whole: then inflation is in fact division and subdivision. The expansion is in the 'numbers' ie the discreetly different areas within the whole.

it is not a set of sets, which is then a set of set of sets... the set of sets is absolute by definition and any introduction of further sets merely shows subdivision of the original.

[inserted note for Prof Schiller, with added lolz --> the term 'discreet difference' is used to indicate that although there may well be a continuum of difference it's only when such differences are discreet that they interact as differences. i love my analogies, so think of a magnet. there is a continuum between N and S (the physical object is a whole unit), and the differences in polarity gradually converge to the grey areas where we can't tell if it's more N than S or more S than N... but when the interactions of each pole are examined, we see they act in discreetly different directions. The continuum isn't discreetly different, so it isn't analysable through number. As soon as we're analysing using number we're separating it into discreetly different interactions. A curve on a graph is a continuum, but as soon as you wish to examine the value of a point on that line, you are separating it discreetly from the continuum of line before and after./note for prof schiller]

It is eminently testable as it predicts that 'number theory' and 'quantum mechanics' will become increasingly converged (ok, all areas of physics... but I say quantum mechanics because it's at the narrow end of the decreasing complexity).

the prediction is: more and more 'coincidences' such as the riemann-zeta function will be 'discovered' at the LHC and other high-energy early-universe particle experiments. (In fact anywhere all naturally-occurring topological wholes being subdivided over time, when analysed mathematically should show evidence's of 'strange' similarities between each other, whether it's in physics, biology or any other field).

still with me?

:P