Forum Home
Introduction
Terms of Use
RSS feed | RSS help
Introduction
Terms of Use
Posts by the author are highlighted in orange; posts by FQXi Members are highlighted in blue.
By using the FQXi Forum, you acknowledge reading and agree to abide by the Terms of Use RSS feed | RSS help
FQXi FORUM
February 11, 2012
ARTICLE:
[back to article]
I have been following the work of Mohamed El Naschie for decades. This man has never bad mouthed, ignored or downplayed any one or any contribution. He also acknowlesges every single person who contributed to his work unless he genuinely did not know and then he will immediately apologize for the unintended omission. I accept nothing less from Garrett Lisi and look forward to read his explanation. With genuine good luck wishes for both Garrett and Mohamed
this post was moved here from a different topic
report post as inappropriate
this post was moved here from a different topic
report post as inappropriate
The following question is directed to Dr. Garrett Lisi: Your theory is that of unification and not only grand unification but quantum gravity unification of all fundamental forces. In such a case the unification coupling constant is one of, if not the most important result. It is the illusive point where all the four fundamental forces meet. What is the value of this coupling? El Naschie claims that he found the exact value of this coupling to be 1 divided by 26 assuming super symmetry. So what is the value coming out of your own calculations?
this post was moved here from a different topic
report post as inappropriate
this post was moved here from a different topic
report post as inappropriate
Dear Garrett
I am sure you are inundated by too many irrelevant comments and confused remarks all apart of unfounded and poisonous so-called criticism on a site ironically called “The Reference frame”. By contrast I hope I could bring to you some constructive suggestions which may be of help. It seems to me it is important to embed E8 in some kind of spacetime and create a substitute to...
view entire post
I am sure you are inundated by too many irrelevant comments and confused remarks all apart of unfounded and poisonous so-called criticism on a site ironically called “The Reference frame”. By contrast I hope I could bring to you some constructive suggestions which may be of help. It seems to me it is important to embed E8 in some kind of spacetime and create a substitute to...
view entire post
this post was moved here from a different topic
report post as inappropriate
Garrett
Your theory as I understand it has a sort of fields democracy. You can derive any field from E8 by letting it, as you like to say, “dance” on our 4 D spacetime. Well this sounds pretty similar to Elnaschie. He uses the golden mean transformation, in fact simple scaling to deform E8 into a Penrose-like fractal tiling. This Penrose universe is in fact an example of a non commutative space as explained in detail in the classical books of A. Connes. This space is homomorphic to the compactified Klein modular curve and possesses 336 + 3 = 339 hierarchical degrees of freedom. Using the 496 of E8E8 and the 20 of Einstein’s gravity tensor, Elnaschie found the electromagnetic inverse constant to be 496 – (339 + 20)= 137.
I think these results and the connections to non-commutative geometry may be quite important to your work. The particular paper in question is “On Penrose’s view of transfinite sets and computability and the fractal character of E-infinity spacetime” published in Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, 25(2005) pp. 531 – 533.
With my best wishes,
Dietmar Kohlhass
this post was moved here from a different topic
report post as inappropriate
Your theory as I understand it has a sort of fields democracy. You can derive any field from E8 by letting it, as you like to say, “dance” on our 4 D spacetime. Well this sounds pretty similar to Elnaschie. He uses the golden mean transformation, in fact simple scaling to deform E8 into a Penrose-like fractal tiling. This Penrose universe is in fact an example of a non commutative space as explained in detail in the classical books of A. Connes. This space is homomorphic to the compactified Klein modular curve and possesses 336 + 3 = 339 hierarchical degrees of freedom. Using the 496 of E8E8 and the 20 of Einstein’s gravity tensor, Elnaschie found the electromagnetic inverse constant to be 496 – (339 + 20)= 137.
I think these results and the connections to non-commutative geometry may be quite important to your work. The particular paper in question is “On Penrose’s view of transfinite sets and computability and the fractal character of E-infinity spacetime” published in Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, 25(2005) pp. 531 – 533.
With my best wishes,
Dietmar Kohlhass
this post was moved here from a different topic
report post as inappropriate
Garrett – it seems you have set a trend toward maximal simplicity. I read about a new theory in the Telegraph using what is called Adellic function for prime numbers. The P-Adic theory was given for P=2 in one quarter of a line:
2-Adic of 137 = 1
Or in more intelligible terminology, looking at 137 from a P=2 reversed magnifying glass it is exactly equal to 1. The physical interpretation of this mathematical scaling of a number field is the tantalizing bit. We know 137 is the inverse electromagnetic constant which is the weakest coupling. But 1 is the largest coupling possible and is believed to be that of the Planck mass to the Planck spacetime or Planck Aether. Second,137 is the exact number of elementary particles in the standard model while there is only one type of particles in the Planck Aether. This is remarkable confirmation of the Planck Aether theory which was developed by one of Heisenberg’s students who is a retired Professor at the University of Nevada in the USA.
The Telegraph is referring to a paper published by El Naschie in Chaos, Solitons & Fractals. It would be great to know your views on the ramification of this remarkable unification which must be deeply related to the theory of P-Adic quantum mechanics.
J. Schiffer
this post was moved here from a different topic
report post as inappropriate
2-Adic of 137 = 1
Or in more intelligible terminology, looking at 137 from a P=2 reversed magnifying glass it is exactly equal to 1. The physical interpretation of this mathematical scaling of a number field is the tantalizing bit. We know 137 is the inverse electromagnetic constant which is the weakest coupling. But 1 is the largest coupling possible and is believed to be that of the Planck mass to the Planck spacetime or Planck Aether. Second,137 is the exact number of elementary particles in the standard model while there is only one type of particles in the Planck Aether. This is remarkable confirmation of the Planck Aether theory which was developed by one of Heisenberg’s students who is a retired Professor at the University of Nevada in the USA.
The Telegraph is referring to a paper published by El Naschie in Chaos, Solitons & Fractals. It would be great to know your views on the ramification of this remarkable unification which must be deeply related to the theory of P-Adic quantum mechanics.
J. Schiffer
this post was moved here from a different topic
report post as inappropriate
Hi Garrett,
Fashion as much as dogmas reign in science as in any other aspects of human endeavors. It should not come as a surprise that the cheapest shot in the trade is asking where is the Lagrangian? A little bit of history of science may help although it will never cure.
The action principle was introduced in science as a mere alternative albeit more formal way of arriving at Newton’s equation of motion. It is connected to the name of Maupertius although he dealt only with the elementary problem of minimizing a work function. The more profound problem of minimizing a function was solved by Euler. It then became fashionable to formulate the laws of mechanics without drawing a single picture or diagram in contrast to Newton. At the end we had two schools of thinking, that of the imaginative H. Poincare and that of the sterile Bourbacki group. An abstract method such as the action and variational principle is without doubt of great help in a field such as particle physics where pictures and diagrams are not as helpful as in classical mechanics. But this and quantum field theory was fiercely resisted in the USA as in the Soviet Union. However a detente took place, then a change of guards in the USA as in Russia brought the opposite situation and without a Lagrangian you are not supposed to make a single move. Habit and mental inertia do the rest. Lisi’s work is free of such artificial constraints. He seems to work in three steps just like in the work of Elnaschie. First a clear model, then an enlightened counting, then algebraic manipulation to find what he expects to find. Other physicists like Lisa Randal marvel at the enormously complex mathematic and algebraic computation she is capable of doing as if this is what it is all about. Others like Lisi seek maximum simplicity to find an answer to a physical question and not to demonstrate a supernatural talent for computation as for instance in the case of the proof of the four color problem. Lisi and his followers are theoretical physicists in the mould of Poincare and Einstein. The majority nowadays are mathematical physicists of the Bourbacki type. Lisi has to live with that until the tide of fashion changes.
Robert Fisher
this post was moved here from a different topic
report post as inappropriate
Fashion as much as dogmas reign in science as in any other aspects of human endeavors. It should not come as a surprise that the cheapest shot in the trade is asking where is the Lagrangian? A little bit of history of science may help although it will never cure.
The action principle was introduced in science as a mere alternative albeit more formal way of arriving at Newton’s equation of motion. It is connected to the name of Maupertius although he dealt only with the elementary problem of minimizing a work function. The more profound problem of minimizing a function was solved by Euler. It then became fashionable to formulate the laws of mechanics without drawing a single picture or diagram in contrast to Newton. At the end we had two schools of thinking, that of the imaginative H. Poincare and that of the sterile Bourbacki group. An abstract method such as the action and variational principle is without doubt of great help in a field such as particle physics where pictures and diagrams are not as helpful as in classical mechanics. But this and quantum field theory was fiercely resisted in the USA as in the Soviet Union. However a detente took place, then a change of guards in the USA as in Russia brought the opposite situation and without a Lagrangian you are not supposed to make a single move. Habit and mental inertia do the rest. Lisi’s work is free of such artificial constraints. He seems to work in three steps just like in the work of Elnaschie. First a clear model, then an enlightened counting, then algebraic manipulation to find what he expects to find. Other physicists like Lisa Randal marvel at the enormously complex mathematic and algebraic computation she is capable of doing as if this is what it is all about. Others like Lisi seek maximum simplicity to find an answer to a physical question and not to demonstrate a supernatural talent for computation as for instance in the case of the proof of the four color problem. Lisi and his followers are theoretical physicists in the mould of Poincare and Einstein. The majority nowadays are mathematical physicists of the Bourbacki type. Lisi has to live with that until the tide of fashion changes.
Robert Fisher
this post was moved here from a different topic
report post as inappropriate
The comment written by anonymous on May 4 2008 is worth considering. He is both right and wrong. First he is somewhat wrong because topological singularity theory is used in string theory. However these are structurally stable singularities called by R. Thom catastrophe theory. You can read about that in the McGraw Book published in 1990 in London and authored by Elnaschie, a Professor of Engineering Mechanics at Sibley School of Aeronautics and Astronautics in Cornell, U.S.A. A brief account maybe found in a book by M. Kaku published by Springer. Also physically whenever you have a mini black hole you have a singularity and string theory uses length scale equal to the radius of a Planck mass which is a mini black hole.
The second point is more involved. Quantum chaos theory is not a classical chaos theory because the quantum suppresses ordinary chaos. But the anonymous comment is quite potent! One could describe the work of Nobel Laureate G. ‘tHooft, as well as the same Engineering Professor mentioned above Elnaschie, as searching for the common roots of classical mechanics and quantum mechanics and finding that in classical chaos. However the exact relation of ‘’tHooft and Elnaschie’s work to the work of G. Casati and Boris Cherecov and the quantum chaos community in general is far of being clear at the moment as far as I am aware. But in general you are right. Neither string theory nor loop quantum gravity have place for the fuzziness of chaos, classical or quantum and it would be a great achievement if Garrett theory could incorporate chaotic symmetries in the sense of field and Glotobiski as discussed in many popular writings by the very talented Ian Stewart.
Dr. Robert Fisher
this post was moved here from a different topic
report post as inappropriate
The second point is more involved. Quantum chaos theory is not a classical chaos theory because the quantum suppresses ordinary chaos. But the anonymous comment is quite potent! One could describe the work of Nobel Laureate G. ‘tHooft, as well as the same Engineering Professor mentioned above Elnaschie, as searching for the common roots of classical mechanics and quantum mechanics and finding that in classical chaos. However the exact relation of ‘’tHooft and Elnaschie’s work to the work of G. Casati and Boris Cherecov and the quantum chaos community in general is far of being clear at the moment as far as I am aware. But in general you are right. Neither string theory nor loop quantum gravity have place for the fuzziness of chaos, classical or quantum and it would be a great achievement if Garrett theory could incorporate chaotic symmetries in the sense of field and Glotobiski as discussed in many popular writings by the very talented Ian Stewart.
Dr. Robert Fisher
this post was moved here from a different topic
report post as inappropriate
Disillusioned by conventional quantum mechanics, Richard Feynman invented path integral. I think we are facing a similar situation today with Lisi’s E8 proposal. In fact it is possible to interpret Elnaschie’s method as moving from ordinary path integral to summing over all exceptional Lie symmetry groups. This intriguing point is however this: there are finite numbers of exceptional Lie and Stein manifolds. This way the problem such as Gribor copies is illuminated in a totally unexpected way.
M. Kavorkian
this post was moved here from a different topic
report post as inappropriate
M. Kavorkian
this post was moved here from a different topic
report post as inappropriate
On its own as a single Lie symmetric group E8 cannot do the entire job of unification. On the other hand by summing over all exceptional Lie groups it can be done. This was the program of Prof. Mohamed El Naschie with whom I have had the honour of collaborating on this subject for some time.
this post was moved here from a different topic
report post as inappropriate
this post was moved here from a different topic
report post as inappropriate
To Wong and Kavorkian. You have both spelled the name of the great Russian Theoretical Physicist wrong. He is Professor V. Gribov. He is the first to point out that the usual procedure for fixing the gauge freedom in non-Abelian gauge theories is ambiguous. This puts classical theories of quarks confinement in doubt. This has to do with super conductivity of magnetic monopoles as well as gauge invariance. That is why Elnaschie used summing over exceptional Lie and stein spaces and used a different argument for deriving confinement from phase transition of spacetime to a Planck Aether with a single Planck mass as mini black hole.
L. Cran
this post was moved here from a different topic
report post as inappropriate
L. Cran
this post was moved here from a different topic
report post as inappropriate
At long last Scientific American took notice of E8. On page 16 of the April 2008 issue, Graham P. Collins gives a somewhat mixed up review of the theory and comments on Lisi’s work. Of course he does not mention the work of Green, Schwarz, He, Crnjac, Elnaschie or anyone else, only rejoice that Lisi’s paper was wiped out from the internet archive. The present Stalinistic regime of theoretical physics ayotallahs do not permit that a wonderful theory such as that of Lisi’s becomes respectable. The beautiful small world complexity neural network is not allowed to exist because of the archbishops of superstrings and quantum field theory. People like Lee Smolin and ‘tHooft are rare species nowadays and the Telegraph proved to be more scientifically minded than Scientific American.
B. Kerek
this post was moved here from a different topic
report post as inappropriate
B. Kerek
this post was moved here from a different topic
report post as inappropriate
Pleased to read Ray Munroe’s recent comment dated May 22, 2008. This is the sort of comments acceptable on a respectable site. Yes without digging deeper there is no such thing as E12 because E8 is the largest exceptional Lie symmetry group. Any larger group will have an infinite dimensional Lie algebra. However, Prof. H. Nicolai from Max Planck Einstein Institute in Berlin-Germany worked with E10 and E11. These are special forms of Exceptional Lie group extended beyond the initial idea. It all started by H. Gorgi, M. Elnaschie, J. Schwarz and many others who noticed that by systematically modifying the Dynkin diagram one will find that SO(10) may be called E5 while SU(5) is E4.
Subsequently, M. S. Elnaschie at Frankfurt-Germany proposed to work with a hierarchy of Exceptional Lie Symmetry group leading to a total symmetry group dimension equal to 548. By including all two and three stein spaces, he finds not only 4 alpha bar =548 where alpha bar = 137 but also 5 alpha bar + 1 = 686 as dimensions. From all of that we can easily conclude that Ray Munroe may be well justified in inventing E12. He said it is 684 dimensional which means only 2 less than what Enaschie has calculated and only 1 less than (5)(137) = 685. It maybe worthwhile that Munroe looks at Elnaschie’s work and vice versa and that both should be thankful to the work of Lisi and this site. Most of Elnaschie’s work is published in Nonlinear Dynamics Journals. Here are few samples:
(1) One and two stein space hierarchies in High energy physics, Chaos, Solitons & Fractals. 36(2008) pp. 1189-1190.
(2) The internal dynamics of the exceptional Lie symmetry groups hierarchy and the coupling constants of unification. Chaos, Solitons & Fractals (2008) doi:10.1016/j. Chaos. 2008.04.028.
(3) Montonen-Olive duality and the mass spectrum of elementary particles via E-Infinity. Int. Journal of Nonlinear Science and Numerical Simulation. 9(3), 307-308.
Bob Meyers
this post was moved here from a different topic
report post as inappropriate
Subsequently, M. S. Elnaschie at Frankfurt-Germany proposed to work with a hierarchy of Exceptional Lie Symmetry group leading to a total symmetry group dimension equal to 548. By including all two and three stein spaces, he finds not only 4 alpha bar =548 where alpha bar = 137 but also 5 alpha bar + 1 = 686 as dimensions. From all of that we can easily conclude that Ray Munroe may be well justified in inventing E12. He said it is 684 dimensional which means only 2 less than what Enaschie has calculated and only 1 less than (5)(137) = 685. It maybe worthwhile that Munroe looks at Elnaschie’s work and vice versa and that both should be thankful to the work of Lisi and this site. Most of Elnaschie’s work is published in Nonlinear Dynamics Journals. Here are few samples:
(1) One and two stein space hierarchies in High energy physics, Chaos, Solitons & Fractals. 36(2008) pp. 1189-1190.
(2) The internal dynamics of the exceptional Lie symmetry groups hierarchy and the coupling constants of unification. Chaos, Solitons & Fractals (2008) doi:10.1016/j. Chaos. 2008.04.028.
(3) Montonen-Olive duality and the mass spectrum of elementary particles via E-Infinity. Int. Journal of Nonlinear Science and Numerical Simulation. 9(3), 307-308.
Bob Meyers
this post was moved here from a different topic
report post as inappropriate
Two brand new papers came to my attention and they may be more than relevant to Garrett Lisi’s research. The papers are by a Saudi scientist at King Abdullah Institute for Nano and Advanced Technologies, KSU, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Both papers are on Elsevier science direct.
(a) E-eight exceptional Lie groups, Fibonacci lattices and the standard model.
(b) Towards a quantum field theory without Gribov copies and similar problems.
The two papers are published by Elsevier and the name of the Journal is Chaos, Solitons & Fractals and author’s name is M. S. Elnaschie.
A. Kasim
this post was moved here from a different topic
report post as inappropriate
(a) E-eight exceptional Lie groups, Fibonacci lattices and the standard model.
(b) Towards a quantum field theory without Gribov copies and similar problems.
The two papers are published by Elsevier and the name of the Journal is Chaos, Solitons & Fractals and author’s name is M. S. Elnaschie.
A. Kasim
this post was moved here from a different topic
report post as inappropriate
Dear Bob Meyers,
Thank you for the observation that 5 x 137 = 685 is only one element larger than my 684-plet of “E12”. I have been aware of Sir Arthur S. Eddington’s old work regarding the Fine Structure Constant for many years, but I have not followed Prof. Mohamed S. Elnaschie’s work. Personally, I am a proponent of Five Fundamental Forces, Five Generations of Fundamental Fermions (there’s that number FIVE again), and I’m a big fan of Dirac’s Large Numbers Hypothesis regarding the number ~10^40. But I’ve always been suspicious of theories built around the number 137, because the Fine Structure “Constant” of QED varies with the renormalization mass scale (for instance, the Weak-scale alpha bar is ~128), and how does that affect the theory?
Nonetheless, your observations have raised my interest. I need to visit Florida State University’s Dirac Science Library, and read Elnaschie’s ideas.
Sincerely,
Ray Munroe
p.s. – A correction to my earlier posting: The G2 of color bosons contains basis: g3, g8; roots: 6 gluons & 6 squarks/ anti-squarks; and singlet: selectron/ anti-selectron. The adjunct G2 of color fermions contains basis: electron/ positron; roots: 6 gluinos & 6 quarks; and singlet: gluino-3/ gluino-8. I think it is sloppy to mix bosons and fermions in the same representation group, when we know that there is an adjunct Supersymmetric representation.
this post was moved here from a different topic
report post as inappropriate
Thank you for the observation that 5 x 137 = 685 is only one element larger than my 684-plet of “E12”. I have been aware of Sir Arthur S. Eddington’s old work regarding the Fine Structure Constant for many years, but I have not followed Prof. Mohamed S. Elnaschie’s work. Personally, I am a proponent of Five Fundamental Forces, Five Generations of Fundamental Fermions (there’s that number FIVE again), and I’m a big fan of Dirac’s Large Numbers Hypothesis regarding the number ~10^40. But I’ve always been suspicious of theories built around the number 137, because the Fine Structure “Constant” of QED varies with the renormalization mass scale (for instance, the Weak-scale alpha bar is ~128), and how does that affect the theory?
Nonetheless, your observations have raised my interest. I need to visit Florida State University’s Dirac Science Library, and read Elnaschie’s ideas.
Sincerely,
Ray Munroe
p.s. – A correction to my earlier posting: The G2 of color bosons contains basis: g3, g8; roots: 6 gluons & 6 squarks/ anti-squarks; and singlet: selectron/ anti-selectron. The adjunct G2 of color fermions contains basis: electron/ positron; roots: 6 gluinos & 6 quarks; and singlet: gluino-3/ gluino-8. I think it is sloppy to mix bosons and fermions in the same representation group, when we know that there is an adjunct Supersymmetric representation.
this post was moved here from a different topic
report post as inappropriate
Dear Ray,
Thank you for responding to my comments. I can give you more definite things of which I have just become aware. In hyperbolic geometry volume is an invariant. There is a hyperbolic manifold called M4 studied by some Swiss mathematician in Zurich and used by Mohamed El Naschie in high energy physics. Believe it or not, the so-called two volume of M4 is exactly your dimension 684....
view entire post
Thank you for responding to my comments. I can give you more definite things of which I have just become aware. In hyperbolic geometry volume is an invariant. There is a hyperbolic manifold called M4 studied by some Swiss mathematician in Zurich and used by Mohamed El Naschie in high energy physics. Believe it or not, the so-called two volume of M4 is exactly your dimension 684....
view entire post
this post was moved here from a different topic
report post as inappropriate
To Bob Meyers
I was really flabbergasted to see a paper published four years ago using a manifold with exactly (2)(342) = 684 something. This is exactly the order of Ray Munroe’s E12 not one centime less.
To Ray Munroe:
I said 684 something because this was not called dimension but twice the four-dimensional volume invariant of a manifold called M4. This manifold is based on a 120-cell coexter polytope and therefore is related to the E8 Gosset. Elnaschie noted that (26 +k)(26 +k) = 685. This volume invariance may be regarded as a substitute to dimension. The paper titled: Super-symmetry, transfinite neural networks, hyperbolic manifold, quantum gravity and the Higgs, is a clear validation of Munroe’s E12 which has F theory spacetime dimension as 12. The paper is published in Chaos, Solitons and Fractals No 22 (2004) pp. 999-1006. The author is M. S. Elnaschie from Cobham, Surrey, UK. It is amazing that the hyperbolic volume of M4 is equal to E12 dimensions. However, it is unbelievable that it is almost equal to the 686 of the sum of all exceptional Lie symmetry groups and stein spaces. These are entirely different theories and formulations leading to exactly same results. It is beautiful and must be true.
A. Kasim
this post was moved here from a different topic
report post as inappropriate
I was really flabbergasted to see a paper published four years ago using a manifold with exactly (2)(342) = 684 something. This is exactly the order of Ray Munroe’s E12 not one centime less.
To Ray Munroe:
I said 684 something because this was not called dimension but twice the four-dimensional volume invariant of a manifold called M4. This manifold is based on a 120-cell coexter polytope and therefore is related to the E8 Gosset. Elnaschie noted that (26 +k)(26 +k) = 685. This volume invariance may be regarded as a substitute to dimension. The paper titled: Super-symmetry, transfinite neural networks, hyperbolic manifold, quantum gravity and the Higgs, is a clear validation of Munroe’s E12 which has F theory spacetime dimension as 12. The paper is published in Chaos, Solitons and Fractals No 22 (2004) pp. 999-1006. The author is M. S. Elnaschie from Cobham, Surrey, UK. It is amazing that the hyperbolic volume of M4 is equal to E12 dimensions. However, it is unbelievable that it is almost equal to the 686 of the sum of all exceptional Lie symmetry groups and stein spaces. These are entirely different theories and formulations leading to exactly same results. It is beautiful and must be true.
A. Kasim
this post was moved here from a different topic
report post as inappropriate
Dear Garrett:
To whom it may be of interest, I would like to say that the E12 proposal of Ray Munroe has taken me by surprise for more than one reason. I am a follower of the work of Professor Ruth Kellerhals who is a student of the famous Swiss mathematician Prof. Hof, University of Basel, Switzerland. Her wonderful review article is published in Mathematical Intelligencer. My then Ph.D. co-advisor, Prof. Mohamed El Naschie made several references to her paper. She established the hyperbolic 4-manifold M4 found by Dr. M. Davies based on 120-cell coxeter polytope that has a hyperbolic volume 104 multiplied by pi square divided by 3 which is 342.146286. Since El Naschie needs two of them to compare to E8E8, one must multiply by two and find 684.232572. He subsequently reasoned that the exact expression is simply alpha bar divided by 2 and multiplied by 10. In other words it is the 137 alpha bar multiplied by 5. Thus Ray Munroe has found an exceptional symmetry group hyperbolic manifold because (137)(5) = 685. El Naschie calls the exact expression, the transfinitely exact expression:
(137.082039325)(5) = 685.410197
If we would have taken only the integer part from the outset we would have found Ray’s value which is:
(2)(342) = 684
The implication is breathtaking because El Naschie obtained the same results using path integral and Yang-Mills theory combined in his paper titled “Topics in the mathematical physics of E-Infinity” which unfortunately is published in an Elsevier Journal – Chaos, Solitons & Fractals - rather than freely on the world-wide-web (www). Prof. El Naschie is an enormously kind person who did himself a bad service by boycotting internet publications and relying mainly on periodicals which with the exception of Nature, Science and Physics Review, no one reads any more. However a particular paper on this 685 hyperbolic manifold published in the International Journal of Nonlinear Science and Numerical Simulation, an Israeli Journal, was chosen by Thomson - ESI Essential Science Indicator as a most cited hot paper. This is found on the internet at: www.esi-topics.com/nhp/2006/September-06-MohamedElNaschie.ht
ml. The title of the paper is: “On a Fuzzy Kahler-like manifold which is consistent with the two slit experiment” and in the same journal, vol. 6, issue 2 pp. 95-98 (2005). Editor in chief Prof. Ji-Huan He, Shanghai, People’s Republic of China.
I must end by congratulating Ray Munroe on his E12 discovery. However this would have not happened or at least would not have been appreciated without G. Lisi, Lee Smolin and the courageous Telegraph science writer.
Sonja Kaliski
this post was moved here from a different topic
report post as inappropriate
To whom it may be of interest, I would like to say that the E12 proposal of Ray Munroe has taken me by surprise for more than one reason. I am a follower of the work of Professor Ruth Kellerhals who is a student of the famous Swiss mathematician Prof. Hof, University of Basel, Switzerland. Her wonderful review article is published in Mathematical Intelligencer. My then Ph.D. co-advisor, Prof. Mohamed El Naschie made several references to her paper. She established the hyperbolic 4-manifold M4 found by Dr. M. Davies based on 120-cell coxeter polytope that has a hyperbolic volume 104 multiplied by pi square divided by 3 which is 342.146286. Since El Naschie needs two of them to compare to E8E8, one must multiply by two and find 684.232572. He subsequently reasoned that the exact expression is simply alpha bar divided by 2 and multiplied by 10. In other words it is the 137 alpha bar multiplied by 5. Thus Ray Munroe has found an exceptional symmetry group hyperbolic manifold because (137)(5) = 685. El Naschie calls the exact expression, the transfinitely exact expression:
(137.082039325)(5) = 685.410197
If we would have taken only the integer part from the outset we would have found Ray’s value which is:
(2)(342) = 684
The implication is breathtaking because El Naschie obtained the same results using path integral and Yang-Mills theory combined in his paper titled “Topics in the mathematical physics of E-Infinity” which unfortunately is published in an Elsevier Journal – Chaos, Solitons & Fractals - rather than freely on the world-wide-web (www). Prof. El Naschie is an enormously kind person who did himself a bad service by boycotting internet publications and relying mainly on periodicals which with the exception of Nature, Science and Physics Review, no one reads any more. However a particular paper on this 685 hyperbolic manifold published in the International Journal of Nonlinear Science and Numerical Simulation, an Israeli Journal, was chosen by Thomson - ESI Essential Science Indicator as a most cited hot paper. This is found on the internet at: www.esi-topics.com/nhp/2006/September-06-MohamedElNaschie.ht
ml. The title of the paper is: “On a Fuzzy Kahler-like manifold which is consistent with the two slit experiment” and in the same journal, vol. 6, issue 2 pp. 95-98 (2005). Editor in chief Prof. Ji-Huan He, Shanghai, People’s Republic of China.
I must end by congratulating Ray Munroe on his E12 discovery. However this would have not happened or at least would not have been appreciated without G. Lisi, Lee Smolin and the courageous Telegraph science writer.
Sonja Kaliski
this post was moved here from a different topic
report post as inappropriate
Bob – I live in Tallahassee, Florida. The Dirac Science Library is on the other side of town, and they subscribe to many of El Naschie’s favorite journals. I agree that modern research has become “big business” and too many capable researchers have sold out to the mainstream. It’s “publish or die” and the mainstream controls most of the journals, which is why I published on Lulu after two years of rejections by journals who wouldn’t say much more than that my paper “wasn’t appropriate” for their journals. Some good friends of mine have had copies of my book since November 2007, but I haven’t heard good or bad critiques or comments from any of them. They might have too much to lose from siding with an outsider like me. It’s OK – I understand. I’m not a tenured Professor with hundreds of publications, but I do have a Doctorate in Particle Physics and a few publications. That should qualify me to discuss these topics, whether other researchers choose to agree with me or not.
Bob, A. Kasim, and Sonja – El Naschie and I both defy the mainstream, but we might be different flavors of non-conformity. However, the ties between E12, 5 x 137, and M4 plus E8 are amazing. El Naschie is working with a Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Model of Particle Physics, whereas I have introduced new force quanta, new Hyperflavor/ Kaluza-Klein types of fundamental fermions, and new generations of leptoquark fermions. Although my fundamental representation might be E12, I also have singlet states and Supersymmetric partners. Adding up the degrees of freedom, I have at least 1,416 = 12 x 118 different elements in my theory. If we subtract the four 12-plets of singlet states from the 118 sets of 12-plets, and add the 12 dimensions back in, then we have 118 – 4 + 12 = 126, which looks similar to alpha bar at the electroweak scale. How’s that for a little bit of El Naschie-like numerology?
You might all enjoy reading Chapters 3 and 4 of my book “New Approaches Towards A Grand Unified Theory” on Lulu.com. I have extended the free preview to include these Chapters about my efforts to fit the fundamental coupling constants (including the fine structure constant) with Quantum Statistical Grand Unified Theory (a thermodynamic GUT/ TOE of the low-energy coupling constants).
Prof. M.S. El Naschie – Your ideas are interesting, but moderately difficult to find. Have you considered organizing your best ideas into one book? Lulu.com makes self-publishing easy and affordable, and non-conformists are welcome. I would buy your book if it was reasonably priced!
Garrett – Sorry for hijacking your blog site… What are you up to? I haven’t heard from you in a while.
Sincerely, Ray Munroe
this post was moved here from a different topic
report post as inappropriate
Bob, A. Kasim, and Sonja – El Naschie and I both defy the mainstream, but we might be different flavors of non-conformity. However, the ties between E12, 5 x 137, and M4 plus E8 are amazing. El Naschie is working with a Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Model of Particle Physics, whereas I have introduced new force quanta, new Hyperflavor/ Kaluza-Klein types of fundamental fermions, and new generations of leptoquark fermions. Although my fundamental representation might be E12, I also have singlet states and Supersymmetric partners. Adding up the degrees of freedom, I have at least 1,416 = 12 x 118 different elements in my theory. If we subtract the four 12-plets of singlet states from the 118 sets of 12-plets, and add the 12 dimensions back in, then we have 118 – 4 + 12 = 126, which looks similar to alpha bar at the electroweak scale. How’s that for a little bit of El Naschie-like numerology?
You might all enjoy reading Chapters 3 and 4 of my book “New Approaches Towards A Grand Unified Theory” on Lulu.com. I have extended the free preview to include these Chapters about my efforts to fit the fundamental coupling constants (including the fine structure constant) with Quantum Statistical Grand Unified Theory (a thermodynamic GUT/ TOE of the low-energy coupling constants).
Prof. M.S. El Naschie – Your ideas are interesting, but moderately difficult to find. Have you considered organizing your best ideas into one book? Lulu.com makes self-publishing easy and affordable, and non-conformists are welcome. I would buy your book if it was reasonably priced!
Garrett – Sorry for hijacking your blog site… What are you up to? I haven’t heard from you in a while.
Sincerely, Ray Munroe
this post was moved here from a different topic
report post as inappropriate
Dear Ray:
You can contact Prof. El Naschie directly or through his student nasr2000@gawab.com.
As far as I am aware El Naschie abhors internet, doesn’t use it and he doesn’t read it. He is really truly old-fashioned in this respect and guards his privacy jealously. But I can tell you could become friends.
However friendship must be based on true understanding. The expression...
view entire post
You can contact Prof. El Naschie directly or through his student nasr2000@gawab.com.
As far as I am aware El Naschie abhors internet, doesn’t use it and he doesn’t read it. He is really truly old-fashioned in this respect and guards his privacy jealously. But I can tell you could become friends.
However friendship must be based on true understanding. The expression...
view entire post
this post was moved here from a different topic
report post as inappropriate
Dear Bob,
Yesterday was not my best work. This reconciliation between my SUSY E12 and alpha bar has been bothering me for days. My SU(11) boson GUT needs more Goldstone/ Higgs scalars to break the SU(11) symmetry down to an SU(7) and supply longitudinal degrees of freedom to the massive Q, R, U and V Grand Bosons that are sequestered on the gravity-brane. I might also need spin 3/2 leptoquarks. And we haven’t even begun to consider non-minimal Supersymmetric models. I could easily increase my particle content from 118 x 12 up to 137 x 12. It would be interesting if a 12-dimensional SUSY TOE had a particle content of 137 x 12, but it doesn’t yet feel natural to me. I haven’t given up. It is a work in progress…
The comment “El Naschie-like numerology” came across rudely, and I apologize to Prof. El Naschie, his followers, and you. What I meant is that 137, 248 and 684 are just numbers. Truly, some numbers may contain more “enlightenment” than other numbers. I understand that concept and my work is full of such kinds of numbers.
Anonymous “e” – Left and right still exist. After all, the low-energy symmetries still prefer left over right (Table 8 and Figure 3 in my book help clarify how that still occurs). It appears that we have a body-centered cubic lattice of fundamental fermions in hyperspace dimensions. As such, how we define “GUT/ TOE” depends on how many nearest-neighbors, next-nearest-neighbors, etc. we choose to include. My hyperflavor theory includes nearest-neighbor fermions, and increases fermion degrees of freedom by a factor of 7 (consider a simple cubic lattice with the origin, and one unit to the left, right, front, back, up and down). Seven is one of my “enlightened” numbers, and it carries on into SO(8) 28-plets and their respective role in E12 = 12 x (2 x 28 + 1).
Garrett – Thank you and the FQXi Community for providing a forum to discuss these ideas. I’m sure you must be busy, but we would really like to hear your ideas as well.
this post was moved here from a different topic
report post as inappropriate
Yesterday was not my best work. This reconciliation between my SUSY E12 and alpha bar has been bothering me for days. My SU(11) boson GUT needs more Goldstone/ Higgs scalars to break the SU(11) symmetry down to an SU(7) and supply longitudinal degrees of freedom to the massive Q, R, U and V Grand Bosons that are sequestered on the gravity-brane. I might also need spin 3/2 leptoquarks. And we haven’t even begun to consider non-minimal Supersymmetric models. I could easily increase my particle content from 118 x 12 up to 137 x 12. It would be interesting if a 12-dimensional SUSY TOE had a particle content of 137 x 12, but it doesn’t yet feel natural to me. I haven’t given up. It is a work in progress…
The comment “El Naschie-like numerology” came across rudely, and I apologize to Prof. El Naschie, his followers, and you. What I meant is that 137, 248 and 684 are just numbers. Truly, some numbers may contain more “enlightenment” than other numbers. I understand that concept and my work is full of such kinds of numbers.
Anonymous “e” – Left and right still exist. After all, the low-energy symmetries still prefer left over right (Table 8 and Figure 3 in my book help clarify how that still occurs). It appears that we have a body-centered cubic lattice of fundamental fermions in hyperspace dimensions. As such, how we define “GUT/ TOE” depends on how many nearest-neighbors, next-nearest-neighbors, etc. we choose to include. My hyperflavor theory includes nearest-neighbor fermions, and increases fermion degrees of freedom by a factor of 7 (consider a simple cubic lattice with the origin, and one unit to the left, right, front, back, up and down). Seven is one of my “enlightened” numbers, and it carries on into SO(8) 28-plets and their respective role in E12 = 12 x (2 x 28 + 1).
Garrett – Thank you and the FQXi Community for providing a forum to discuss these ideas. I’m sure you must be busy, but we would really like to hear your ideas as well.
this post was moved here from a different topic
report post as inappropriate
I don’t understand why a well-established Elsevier Journal such as Chaos, Solitons & Fractals with the highest impact factor amongst all international Journals of non-linear dynamics should be considered moderately difficult to find. The solution for the present deadlock in theoretical physics must come from an interdisciplinary direction. Consequently, a particle physicist must read across the artificial limits of specialization if he wants to impact particle physics. Interestingly both Garrett Lisi and Mohamed El Naschie have both a non-linear dynamics background. Nonlinear dynamics, chaos and fractals are by definition interdisciplinary.
A.Kasim
this post was moved here from a different topic
report post as inappropriate
A.Kasim
this post was moved here from a different topic
report post as inappropriate
To Ray Munroe
You are almost right but not completely in stating the difference between you and El Naschie. Your theory is essentially a so-called Technicolor. Elnaschie states clearly that his is transfinitely exact. Both of you are invoking far more particles than could be ever discovered. However, we are all talking about energy under one tesla as far as the standard model is concerned. The rest is theory – to come down to one tesla in a consistent manner. String theory is no different. They work with 8064 coming from 496 and end up with 126 or 63. El Naschie comes from 8872 down to 685 the 548 and ends up with 137 or 68.5. You start with 684 and if you do all correctly you end with something very close to 68.4 or 136.8. There is no fiddling here. It is all consistent with the E-Infinity action principle which El Naschie derives from the sphere packing density in higher dimensional space by summing over all exceptional Lie groups in analogy to Feynman’s path integral.
Sonja Kaliski
this post was moved here from a different topic
report post as inappropriate
You are almost right but not completely in stating the difference between you and El Naschie. Your theory is essentially a so-called Technicolor. Elnaschie states clearly that his is transfinitely exact. Both of you are invoking far more particles than could be ever discovered. However, we are all talking about energy under one tesla as far as the standard model is concerned. The rest is theory – to come down to one tesla in a consistent manner. String theory is no different. They work with 8064 coming from 496 and end up with 126 or 63. El Naschie comes from 8872 down to 685 the 548 and ends up with 137 or 68.5. You start with 684 and if you do all correctly you end with something very close to 68.4 or 136.8. There is no fiddling here. It is all consistent with the E-Infinity action principle which El Naschie derives from the sphere packing density in higher dimensional space by summing over all exceptional Lie groups in analogy to Feynman’s path integral.
Sonja Kaliski
this post was moved here from a different topic
report post as inappropriate
Dear A. Kasim,
Yes, all of my degrees are in Physics from the same University (Florida State U.), and all of my journal articles are about Particle Physics simulation and prediction. That must appear to be a narrow field of study, and you probably wonder how I ever fell out of the mainstream? I also studied Solid State Physics and Plasma Physics in graduate school at the University of Texas. I guess you could say that crystalline symmetry groups and thermodynamics contaminated my Particle Physics Worldview. I agree that we need more “generalists” to balance out all of the “specialists” in this field of study.
Certainly, the local science library subscribes to Elsevier’s Chaos, Solitons & Fractals Journal, but I don’t personally, and $31.50 US for one article via internet is a steep price.
Dear Sonja Kaliski,
No, my theory is not Technicolor. I first developed a version of Quantum Statistical Grand Unified Theory in 1981, while I was a graduate student at U. Texas. I understood that I needed an extra level of quantization, and I relied on Technicolor for that purpose. My Quantum Statistical Professor didn’t like my usage of Technicolor, Technicolor went out of fashion, and I later realized that String Theory could supply this extra level of quantization. I think the difference is that Technicolor relies on deeper levels of fundamental constituents (i.e. going from composite protons to composite quarks to fundamental preons?) whereas my Hyperflavor electrons are super-massive fundamental particles that probably better correspond to Kaluza – Klein electrons. Their greater masses might make Hyperflavor electrons look like a new generation of leptons beyond the tau, thus the “flavor” part of the name. And we might have lattices of fundamental fermions in hyperspace, thus the “hyper” part of the name.
Yes, we need to first understand the physics under 1 TeV. I hope that the LHC can find the light Higgs boson. If not, the proposed International Linear Collider (ILC) will have a better Signal to Noise ratio for certain types of events (I studied that machine’s performance for my 1996 doctoral thesis – It takes too long to build these machines because too many people believe that the Standard Model or the Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Model is all there is and no one wants to spend $20,000,000,000 US to measure the next two decimal places of a particle mass or an astrophysical constant). Is Supersymmetry at the Weak Scale of 1 TeV, or my Gravity Scale of 20,000 TeV? We need to carefully analyze the cosmic ray data at the 10,000 to 100,000 TeV scale and determine if we can justify a super-collider even more powerful than both the LHC and ILC.
136.8 is close to 137. But I have extra Supersymmetric and singlet states that aren’t part of the 684, and thought I was working in 12 dimensions, not 10?
Sincerely, Ray Munroe
this post was moved here from a different topic
report post as inappropriate
Yes, all of my degrees are in Physics from the same University (Florida State U.), and all of my journal articles are about Particle Physics simulation and prediction. That must appear to be a narrow field of study, and you probably wonder how I ever fell out of the mainstream? I also studied Solid State Physics and Plasma Physics in graduate school at the University of Texas. I guess you could say that crystalline symmetry groups and thermodynamics contaminated my Particle Physics Worldview. I agree that we need more “generalists” to balance out all of the “specialists” in this field of study.
Certainly, the local science library subscribes to Elsevier’s Chaos, Solitons & Fractals Journal, but I don’t personally, and $31.50 US for one article via internet is a steep price.
Dear Sonja Kaliski,
No, my theory is not Technicolor. I first developed a version of Quantum Statistical Grand Unified Theory in 1981, while I was a graduate student at U. Texas. I understood that I needed an extra level of quantization, and I relied on Technicolor for that purpose. My Quantum Statistical Professor didn’t like my usage of Technicolor, Technicolor went out of fashion, and I later realized that String Theory could supply this extra level of quantization. I think the difference is that Technicolor relies on deeper levels of fundamental constituents (i.e. going from composite protons to composite quarks to fundamental preons?) whereas my Hyperflavor electrons are super-massive fundamental particles that probably better correspond to Kaluza – Klein electrons. Their greater masses might make Hyperflavor electrons look like a new generation of leptons beyond the tau, thus the “flavor” part of the name. And we might have lattices of fundamental fermions in hyperspace, thus the “hyper” part of the name.
Yes, we need to first understand the physics under 1 TeV. I hope that the LHC can find the light Higgs boson. If not, the proposed International Linear Collider (ILC) will have a better Signal to Noise ratio for certain types of events (I studied that machine’s performance for my 1996 doctoral thesis – It takes too long to build these machines because too many people believe that the Standard Model or the Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Model is all there is and no one wants to spend $20,000,000,000 US to measure the next two decimal places of a particle mass or an astrophysical constant). Is Supersymmetry at the Weak Scale of 1 TeV, or my Gravity Scale of 20,000 TeV? We need to carefully analyze the cosmic ray data at the 10,000 to 100,000 TeV scale and determine if we can justify a super-collider even more powerful than both the LHC and ILC.
136.8 is close to 137. But I have extra Supersymmetric and singlet states that aren’t part of the 684, and thought I was working in 12 dimensions, not 10?
Sincerely, Ray Munroe
this post was moved here from a different topic
report post as inappropriate
Dear Ray,
In this letter I just want to clarify once and for all times this point about numbers because we all feel very strongly about it. There is a deeply seated misunderstanding in this respect which must be eradicated. No dear friend, 137, 248 and 684 are not just numbers. Of course they are numbers but not in this case. They have been derived with a particular meaning from a definite...
view entire post
In this letter I just want to clarify once and for all times this point about numbers because we all feel very strongly about it. There is a deeply seated misunderstanding in this respect which must be eradicated. No dear friend, 137, 248 and 684 are not just numbers. Of course they are numbers but not in this case. They have been derived with a particular meaning from a definite...
view entire post
this post was moved here from a different topic
report post as inappropriate
Dear Bob,
All I am saying is that the concept of Alpha Bar Theory is bigger than the numbers 137, 128, etc. And the concept of TOE is bigger than the numbers 248, 684, etc. Your observation of the near equality of El Naschie’s Sum of One and Two Stein Spaces versus Five Alpha Bar versus E12 is interesting. And A. Kasim’s observation of the near equality of El Naschie’s M4 with E8 versus...
view entire post
All I am saying is that the concept of Alpha Bar Theory is bigger than the numbers 137, 128, etc. And the concept of TOE is bigger than the numbers 248, 684, etc. Your observation of the near equality of El Naschie’s Sum of One and Two Stein Spaces versus Five Alpha Bar versus E12 is interesting. And A. Kasim’s observation of the near equality of El Naschie’s M4 with E8 versus...
view entire post
this post was moved here from a different topic
report post as inappropriate
Dear Bob and Garrett,
I have a revision to the degrees of freedom in a Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Model. For the same reason that we can’t have only one Higgsino, we also can’t have only one gravitino. The gravitino is a spin 3/2 fermion. As such, a massless gravitino requires left, right, matter, anti-matter dgf’s for a total of four (my prior counting had two). If the gravitino is massive, then we also need to count its spin 1/2 projections – which brings the number of dgf’s up to eight. Minimal Supersymmetry doubles these numbers with spin-2 tensor bosons. The SUSY partner to the other gravitino spin state might be one of my WIMP-Gravitons – perhaps F3. The minimum number of degrees of freedom for the Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Model is 264 (if the gravitino is massless) or 272 (if the gravitino is massive). Within the Standard Model, we would consider these particles to be hypothetical – along with all of the extra bosons (Goldstone/ other Higgs, X, Y, etc.) that must have broken the original GUT symmetry. But within the Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Model, these dgf’s are fundamental to SUSY theory.
Garrett – This is not a problem for E8. E8 contains 248 dgf’s in a single representation, but 8-dimensional singlets allow us to include 264 dgf’s in one E8 plus two singlet sets (248 + 2 x 8 = 264). Because these extra Higgsino and gravitino states are not part of the Standard Model, it is appropriate to place these odd states in our extra singlets. I’m still a fan of E8. I think E12 condenses down into E8. If E12 is truly “the mother of all exceptional groups” as Bob previously stated, then it is only natural that it should decompose into the sum of all exceptional groups, including E8.
Bob – El Nashcie’s derivation of Alpha Bar from the Standard Model dgf’s is still OK. But we need to reformulate the derivation of Alpha Bar from the Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Model dgf’s. Would you like to e-mail me at mm_buyer@comcast.net, so we don’t have to post all of our rough ideas on this blog site?
Sincerely, Ray Munroe
this post was moved here from a different topic
report post as inappropriate
I have a revision to the degrees of freedom in a Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Model. For the same reason that we can’t have only one Higgsino, we also can’t have only one gravitino. The gravitino is a spin 3/2 fermion. As such, a massless gravitino requires left, right, matter, anti-matter dgf’s for a total of four (my prior counting had two). If the gravitino is massive, then we also need to count its spin 1/2 projections – which brings the number of dgf’s up to eight. Minimal Supersymmetry doubles these numbers with spin-2 tensor bosons. The SUSY partner to the other gravitino spin state might be one of my WIMP-Gravitons – perhaps F3. The minimum number of degrees of freedom for the Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Model is 264 (if the gravitino is massless) or 272 (if the gravitino is massive). Within the Standard Model, we would consider these particles to be hypothetical – along with all of the extra bosons (Goldstone/ other Higgs, X, Y, etc.) that must have broken the original GUT symmetry. But within the Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Model, these dgf’s are fundamental to SUSY theory.
Garrett – This is not a problem for E8. E8 contains 248 dgf’s in a single representation, but 8-dimensional singlets allow us to include 264 dgf’s in one E8 plus two singlet sets (248 + 2 x 8 = 264). Because these extra Higgsino and gravitino states are not part of the Standard Model, it is appropriate to place these odd states in our extra singlets. I’m still a fan of E8. I think E12 condenses down into E8. If E12 is truly “the mother of all exceptional groups” as Bob previously stated, then it is only natural that it should decompose into the sum of all exceptional groups, including E8.
Bob – El Nashcie’s derivation of Alpha Bar from the Standard Model dgf’s is still OK. But we need to reformulate the derivation of Alpha Bar from the Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Model dgf’s. Would you like to e-mail me at mm_buyer@comcast.net, so we don’t have to post all of our rough ideas on this blog site?
Sincerely, Ray Munroe
this post was moved here from a different topic
report post as inappropriate
Dear Bob, A. Kasim, and Sonja,
I have been reading some of Prof. El Naschie’s work on E Infinity, and I think I have a better understanding of the similarities between us. When we use the symplictic transformation of a square proportioned according to the dimensional hierarchy of heterotic string theory, we get 10, 16+k, 26+k and 42+2k string dimensions (Chaos, Solitons & Fractals 30...
view entire post
I have been reading some of Prof. El Naschie’s work on E Infinity, and I think I have a better understanding of the similarities between us. When we use the symplictic transformation of a square proportioned according to the dimensional hierarchy of heterotic string theory, we get 10, 16+k, 26+k and 42+2k string dimensions (Chaos, Solitons & Fractals 30...
view entire post
this post was moved here from a different topic
report post as inappropriate
Dear Dr. Munroe,
I have been following your discussion with Dr. Bob Meyers. I am not familiar with your work nor with that of Dr. Lisi, but I have attended several lectures of Professor Mohamed El Naschie in Germany. I suspect you probably know what I will say but I will say it any way. There is nothing called alpha bar equals 137 full stop. The 137 is the 128, is the 127, is the 42, is the 26, is 1. It is all alpha bar but measured at different energies. So if we say the electromagnetic fine structure constant we are strictly speaking wrong, it is anything but constant. It is a function of energy. Some people think the standard model is resolution independent. This is fundamentally wrong. It is of course only weakly resolution dependent. In a sense it is not reflecting its true fractal nature but it is a fractal. You said in your last message you would like to calculate alpha bar for a minimally super symmetric standard model. Strictly speaking this is a little bit higher energy and alpha will not be exactly 137. What is nice about El Naschie`s theory is that all of this is part and parcel of the theory. Everything in his theory is resolution dependent.
Apart of that there is a slight misunderstanding about the theoretical and the experimental value of alpha bar at our energy scale. Please note that 137.036 is approximately the experimental value. El Naschie`s transfinite exact theoretical value is 137.082039325. This is equal to 20 multiplied with the inverse golden mean to the power of 4. You should not mix one with the other. This may seem as very small differences. However we know better from nonlinear dynamics. The butterfly effect is very often present in high energy particle physics. I can assure you two things. First the number of particles in the standard model is exactly 137 elementary particles and your E12 is definitely correct and I understand that some people have checked the work and found the exact integer dimension is 685, one larger than what you calculate. Congratulations for you discovery.
I predict that you will hear much great news about it, sooner rather than later.
this post was moved here from a different topic
report post as inappropriate
I have been following your discussion with Dr. Bob Meyers. I am not familiar with your work nor with that of Dr. Lisi, but I have attended several lectures of Professor Mohamed El Naschie in Germany. I suspect you probably know what I will say but I will say it any way. There is nothing called alpha bar equals 137 full stop. The 137 is the 128, is the 127, is the 42, is the 26, is 1. It is all alpha bar but measured at different energies. So if we say the electromagnetic fine structure constant we are strictly speaking wrong, it is anything but constant. It is a function of energy. Some people think the standard model is resolution independent. This is fundamentally wrong. It is of course only weakly resolution dependent. In a sense it is not reflecting its true fractal nature but it is a fractal. You said in your last message you would like to calculate alpha bar for a minimally super symmetric standard model. Strictly speaking this is a little bit higher energy and alpha will not be exactly 137. What is nice about El Naschie`s theory is that all of this is part and parcel of the theory. Everything in his theory is resolution dependent.
Apart of that there is a slight misunderstanding about the theoretical and the experimental value of alpha bar at our energy scale. Please note that 137.036 is approximately the experimental value. El Naschie`s transfinite exact theoretical value is 137.082039325. This is equal to 20 multiplied with the inverse golden mean to the power of 4. You should not mix one with the other. This may seem as very small differences. However we know better from nonlinear dynamics. The butterfly effect is very often present in high energy particle physics. I can assure you two things. First the number of particles in the standard model is exactly 137 elementary particles and your E12 is definitely correct and I understand that some people have checked the work and found the exact integer dimension is 685, one larger than what you calculate. Congratulations for you discovery.
I predict that you will hear much great news about it, sooner rather than later.
this post was moved here from a different topic
report post as inappropriate
Dear Gerhard,
Thank you for your observations. All of these ideas are merging. I am writing a paper about them now. I will relay it to Prof. El Naschie via Nasr Ahmed within the next two or three weeks.
Sincerely, Ray Munroe
this post was moved here from a different topic
report post as inappropriate
Thank you for your observations. All of these ideas are merging. I am writing a paper about them now. I will relay it to Prof. El Naschie via Nasr Ahmed within the next two or three weeks.
Sincerely, Ray Munroe
this post was moved here from a different topic
report post as inappropriate
Dr. Ray Munroe
You may fine the following paper by two brilliant lady professors useful for your work: Golden differential geometry, published in Chaos, Solitons & Fractals doi: 10.1016/j.chaos.2008.04.007. There is also a new paper by El Naschie ‘Deriving the largest expected number of elementary particles in the standard model from the maximal compact subgroup H of the exceptional Lie group E7(-5), Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, doi:10.1016/j.chaos2008.06.004 both of which can be found on Elsevier’s Science Direct website.
I think what people are not realizing is that many things change when you move to wild topology. In this case you can change the current algebra by fusion algebra. The classical E8 of Dr. Garrett Lisi does not include this vital move. El Naschie also did not emphasize this point which in my humble opinion is more important than anything else. In a 2002 paper El Naschie touched upon this subject but did not return to it again in sufficient depth. I think his best paper is ‘Wild topology, hyperbolic geometry and fusion algebra of high energy particle physics, Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, Vol. 13, p. 1935-1945 (2002).
In this paper El Naschie chartered the solution for the problems with classical quantum field theory and essentially introduced the modification of E8.
If we go back in history we will find that Rene Descartes investigated in rudimentary form something similar. This is the logarithmic spiral. To design it you have to follow golden mean proportionality. The result is an incredible connection to a random Cantor set with the golden mean as a Hausdorff dimension. So you have here logarithmic scaling connected to the golden mean connected to Cantor sets and Hausdorff dimension. El Naschie mentioned all of that in a paper entitled The Fibonacci code behind super strings and P-Branes. An answer to M. Kaku’s fundamental question . Again he did not stress it as I had hoped he would do. Another problem comes from all these esoteric who consider the logarithmic spiral the secret of life. All such inflated claims repel serious scientists. It might be true but to put it like that is wild speculation and makes people afraid to deal with the golden mean. This is not science, it is sociology and psychology of main stream thinking, so one has to be careful here. El Naschie was maybe too careful.
Let me give you a final advice. Publish your paper on E12 as soon as you can. If you can, publish it tomorrow but in a refereed journal. Wishing you the best,
Ken Blanchard
this post was moved here from a different topic
report post as inappropriate
You may fine the following paper by two brilliant lady professors useful for your work: Golden differential geometry, published in Chaos, Solitons & Fractals doi: 10.1016/j.chaos.2008.04.007. There is also a new paper by El Naschie ‘Deriving the largest expected number of elementary particles in the standard model from the maximal compact subgroup H of the exceptional Lie group E7(-5), Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, doi:10.1016/j.chaos2008.06.004 both of which can be found on Elsevier’s Science Direct website.
I think what people are not realizing is that many things change when you move to wild topology. In this case you can change the current algebra by fusion algebra. The classical E8 of Dr. Garrett Lisi does not include this vital move. El Naschie also did not emphasize this point which in my humble opinion is more important than anything else. In a 2002 paper El Naschie touched upon this subject but did not return to it again in sufficient depth. I think his best paper is ‘Wild topology, hyperbolic geometry and fusion algebra of high energy particle physics, Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, Vol. 13, p. 1935-1945 (2002).
In this paper El Naschie chartered the solution for the problems with classical quantum field theory and essentially introduced the modification of E8.
If we go back in history we will find that Rene Descartes investigated in rudimentary form something similar. This is the logarithmic spiral. To design it you have to follow golden mean proportionality. The result is an incredible connection to a random Cantor set with the golden mean as a Hausdorff dimension. So you have here logarithmic scaling connected to the golden mean connected to Cantor sets and Hausdorff dimension. El Naschie mentioned all of that in a paper entitled The Fibonacci code behind super strings and P-Branes. An answer to M. Kaku’s fundamental question . Again he did not stress it as I had hoped he would do. Another problem comes from all these esoteric who consider the logarithmic spiral the secret of life. All such inflated claims repel serious scientists. It might be true but to put it like that is wild speculation and makes people afraid to deal with the golden mean. This is not science, it is sociology and psychology of main stream thinking, so one has to be careful here. El Naschie was maybe too careful.
Let me give you a final advice. Publish your paper on E12 as soon as you can. If you can, publish it tomorrow but in a refereed journal. Wishing you the best,
Ken Blanchard
this post was moved here from a different topic
report post as inappropriate
Dear Ken,
Thank you for the advice. Are you the “One Minute Manager” Ken Blanchard? If so, I have read that book. If not, I understand the confusion. There are at least four different Ray Munroe’s on the internet, and that doesn’t include similar names like Lee Ray, Raymond, Munro, or Monroe.
Sincerely, Ray Munroe
this post was moved here from a different topic
report post as inappropriate
Thank you for the advice. Are you the “One Minute Manager” Ken Blanchard? If so, I have read that book. If not, I understand the confusion. There are at least four different Ray Munroe’s on the internet, and that doesn’t include similar names like Lee Ray, Raymond, Munro, or Monroe.
Sincerely, Ray Munroe
this post was moved here from a different topic
report post as inappropriate
Dear Lou
Your questions are correct and basic. No, these are mathematical dimensions related to the structure of E8 itself, that is to say unless you are embedding E8 in spacetime and the 57 dimensions are particularly relevant. Having said that you must understand that advanced theory intermingles real spacetime symmetry and internal symmetry. That is an important aspect about which many physicists such as A. Connes, M. El Naschie and much earlier von Neumann have written and lectured. This intermingling between spacetime dimension and internal dimension is in a limited form a tool of string theory. It is a little bit confusing I agree but one can get used to it. As for Munroe I think he should also take notice of your remark and read El Naschie’s work carefully. He will find there a solution to his E12. He may consult some of El Naschie’s recent papers on Elsevier’s site Science Direct.
this post was moved here from a different topic
report post as inappropriate
Your questions are correct and basic. No, these are mathematical dimensions related to the structure of E8 itself, that is to say unless you are embedding E8 in spacetime and the 57 dimensions are particularly relevant. Having said that you must understand that advanced theory intermingles real spacetime symmetry and internal symmetry. That is an important aspect about which many physicists such as A. Connes, M. El Naschie and much earlier von Neumann have written and lectured. This intermingling between spacetime dimension and internal dimension is in a limited form a tool of string theory. It is a little bit confusing I agree but one can get used to it. As for Munroe I think he should also take notice of your remark and read El Naschie’s work carefully. He will find there a solution to his E12. He may consult some of El Naschie’s recent papers on Elsevier’s site Science Direct.
this post was moved here from a different topic
report post as inappropriate
Hi,
I found a cool interpretation for the dimension of Munroe. It is given by this El Naschie in a paper on the net ‘A derivation of the fine structure constant from the exceptional Lie group hierarchy of the micro cosmos’. OK, on page 820 of this journal, the third equation says the sum of all exceptional groups from 1 to 12 = 685. Then on the fourth equation he writes that the same sum is equal to 5 x 137. Then we have equation number five and he writes the intrinsic dimension of E8 x 12 is = 684. This is 57 x 12 = 684. In other words, he gives Munroe’s dimension an almost cosmological interpretation. It is 12 x the intrinsic dimension of E8 and the intrinsic dimension of E8 may be the structural constant of the universe. Actually the equation has a misprint because it is typed as 648 but is clearly 684 just one less than 685. The next equation makes it very clear by dividing the total sum of 685 by the 12, which is the number of the exceptional Lie groups involved in the sum, and gets 57.083 almost that of the conjectured universe structural constant. Finally he summed all that in a Theorem No. 1.
The details of this fascinating computation may be found again in appendix A of a paper entitled ‘An outline for a quantum golden field theory’.
I think Munroe hit something really cool. El Naschie did not realize it is one group. The only person who ever mentioned that E12 with a dimension 684 or 685 or 686 is a single exceptional Lie Group is Munroe but the connection to the other theories by El Naschie and others must provide a stimuli for further worthwhile research. Who said that the blogs on the internet are useless. I think they are very useful – not always but quite frequently.
this post was moved here from a different topic
report post as inappropriate
I found a cool interpretation for the dimension of Munroe. It is given by this El Naschie in a paper on the net ‘A derivation of the fine structure constant from the exceptional Lie group hierarchy of the micro cosmos’. OK, on page 820 of this journal, the third equation says the sum of all exceptional groups from 1 to 12 = 685. Then on the fourth equation he writes that the same sum is equal to 5 x 137. Then we have equation number five and he writes the intrinsic dimension of E8 x 12 is = 684. This is 57 x 12 = 684. In other words, he gives Munroe’s dimension an almost cosmological interpretation. It is 12 x the intrinsic dimension of E8 and the intrinsic dimension of E8 may be the structural constant of the universe. Actually the equation has a misprint because it is typed as 648 but is clearly 684 just one less than 685. The next equation makes it very clear by dividing the total sum of 685 by the 12, which is the number of the exceptional Lie groups involved in the sum, and gets 57.083 almost that of the conjectured universe structural constant. Finally he summed all that in a Theorem No. 1.
The details of this fascinating computation may be found again in appendix A of a paper entitled ‘An outline for a quantum golden field theory’.
I think Munroe hit something really cool. El Naschie did not realize it is one group. The only person who ever mentioned that E12 with a dimension 684 or 685 or 686 is a single exceptional Lie Group is Munroe but the connection to the other theories by El Naschie and others must provide a stimuli for further worthwhile research. Who said that the blogs on the internet are useless. I think they are very useful – not always but quite frequently.
this post was moved here from a different topic
report post as inappropriate
Those interested in exceptional Lie groups may find an article which appeared a few weeks ago in Scientific American quite interesting. On the surface of it it is talking about fractal spacetime. Essentially this is the approach which was taken by Mohamed El Naschie to model spacetime using Cantor sets. This is very close to but not identical with L. Nottale’s fractal spacetime. I wonder if anybody sees the connection like I see it.
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=the-self-organizing-q
uantum-universe .
this post was moved here from a different topic
report post as inappropriate
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=the-self-organizing-q
uantum-universe .
this post was moved here from a different topic
report post as inappropriate
It is extremely distressing to find that a Center of Excellence such as Spinoza Inst. in the University of Utrecht, Holland led by a Nobel laureate in physics, Gerrardus ‘t Hooft is essentially publishing the same paper in Scientific American http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=the-self-organizing-quan
tum-universe#comments
as well as Quantum and Classical Gravity in addition to Physics Review Letters which is completely based on the work of Laurent Nottale, Garnet Ord and Mohamed El Naschie’s Cantorian spacetime without acknowledging the work of the three. Is that they way referred journals operate nowadays? In the age of globalization, is that the way to get to the top? You simply confiscate the work of children of lesser Gods? I sincerely hope that I am very wrong, otherwise….. no I will not say the word I was going to say.
M. Steffan
this post was moved here from a different topic
report post as inappropriate
tum-universe#comments
as well as Quantum and Classical Gravity in addition to Physics Review Letters which is completely based on the work of Laurent Nottale, Garnet Ord and Mohamed El Naschie’s Cantorian spacetime without acknowledging the work of the three. Is that they way referred journals operate nowadays? In the age of globalization, is that the way to get to the top? You simply confiscate the work of children of lesser Gods? I sincerely hope that I am very wrong, otherwise….. no I will not say the word I was going to say.
M. Steffan
this post was moved here from a different topic
report post as inappropriate
There are two really nice papers on Elsevierfs Science Direct. The first is by Ray Munroe The MSSM, E8, Hyperflavor E12 and E‡c.., Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, doi: 10.1016/j.chaos.2008.06.024. Ray seems to have discovered the symmetry group of E-infinity theory. This is not trivial. This man seems to be a first class theoretical physicist. The second is a highly entertaining paper on the difference between number theory and numerology in physics by L. Marek-Crnjac On the vital difference between number theoryc. , Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, doi: 10.1016/j.chaos.2008.07.039. I wonder what Lisi would think of these two papers.
this post was moved here from a different topic
report post as inappropriate
this post was moved here from a different topic
report post as inappropriate
Dear Rodney,
Thank you for the compliment. Yes, I’m also interested in Garrett’s opinion and feedback. I like Lisi’s E8, but I still think it is too small. I am trying to decipher the quasi-exceptional E12 and/ or El Naschie’s transfinite E-Infinity into a presentation comparable to Lisi’s E8. Thus far, I am bogged down in geometrical details like Klein’s X7 and the 24-cell. Ironically, these are the sort of geometrical objects that El Naschie has been writing about for years. Hopefully, there will be more to come at a later date… For now, I have to prepare for Tropical Storm Fay.
Sincerely, Ray Munroe
this post was moved here from a different topic
report post as inappropriate
Thank you for the compliment. Yes, I’m also interested in Garrett’s opinion and feedback. I like Lisi’s E8, but I still think it is too small. I am trying to decipher the quasi-exceptional E12 and/ or El Naschie’s transfinite E-Infinity into a presentation comparable to Lisi’s E8. Thus far, I am bogged down in geometrical details like Klein’s X7 and the 24-cell. Ironically, these are the sort of geometrical objects that El Naschie has been writing about for years. Hopefully, there will be more to come at a later date… For now, I have to prepare for Tropical Storm Fay.
Sincerely, Ray Munroe
this post was moved here from a different topic
report post as inappropriate
Dear Ray,
I heard from a couple of my colleagues about your book. They are full of praise for it. What I do not understand if why you did not publish your work in Physics Review Letters or did you? I mean it is clear you are a first class, well trained physicist who grasps things very fast. You were able to comprehend Lisi’s work and digest Mohamed El Naschie’s voluminous work while others are still sitting incapable of making the next step. Take Garnet Ord for instance who is highly praised by El Naschie. He keeps publishing papers also in Physics Review but he did not move much since his 1984 paper. Laurent Nottale is different. He produces an enormous amount of work. He improves very slowly but unfortunately repeats the same old mistakes all over again. He is equating fractals with non-differentiability. This is a hair raising proposition for experts on fractals from Mandelbrot to Procaccia but you are really different. I have read a lot on the Scientific American site. The temperature of the discussion gets sometimes quite high but on the whole, it is quite scientific and to the point, similar to this site. Other blogs can be quite trivial and sometimes even disgusting. On a particular site belonging to someone who calls himself a conservative theoretical physicist, I found nothing but trivial and despicable slander against many people including Lisi. Any way I just wanted to tell you that your book should be published by a well known publisher so that those who see only the negative part in everything, do not equate you with vanity publishing. That would be a gross injustice to you and your work in my opinion.
this post was moved here from a different topic
report post as inappropriate
I heard from a couple of my colleagues about your book. They are full of praise for it. What I do not understand if why you did not publish your work in Physics Review Letters or did you? I mean it is clear you are a first class, well trained physicist who grasps things very fast. You were able to comprehend Lisi’s work and digest Mohamed El Naschie’s voluminous work while others are still sitting incapable of making the next step. Take Garnet Ord for instance who is highly praised by El Naschie. He keeps publishing papers also in Physics Review but he did not move much since his 1984 paper. Laurent Nottale is different. He produces an enormous amount of work. He improves very slowly but unfortunately repeats the same old mistakes all over again. He is equating fractals with non-differentiability. This is a hair raising proposition for experts on fractals from Mandelbrot to Procaccia but you are really different. I have read a lot on the Scientific American site. The temperature of the discussion gets sometimes quite high but on the whole, it is quite scientific and to the point, similar to this site. Other blogs can be quite trivial and sometimes even disgusting. On a particular site belonging to someone who calls himself a conservative theoretical physicist, I found nothing but trivial and despicable slander against many people including Lisi. Any way I just wanted to tell you that your book should be published by a well known publisher so that those who see only the negative part in everything, do not equate you with vanity publishing. That would be a gross injustice to you and your work in my opinion.
this post was moved here from a different topic
report post as inappropriate
Dear Brian,
Thank you for the compliment. I have been working on these ideas for years, and I wasn’t sure if they were ready to publish or not. In 2005, I decided that I wanted to move forward with trying to publish. My prior publications were in Phys. Rev. D, so I tried that journal first. Their editorial response was “In general, Physical Review D does not publish theoretical speculations if they do not have rather substantial motivation or if they are based upon ad hoc assumptions. I regret to inform you that, in view of this, we cannot accept your manuscript for publication.” Over the next two years, I also tried to publish in European Physical Journal C, and I resubmitted the paper a couple of times (at different times) to each journal. Finally, in 2007, I decided that we live in an internet age where any idea can be distributed through tools like Lulu.com and blog sites. I know that my ideas are radical (although they yield the Standard Model at low energies), and I chose a radical form of distribution. I want to be accepted by the more conservative, refereed journals, but they never made it clear to me “What to leave in? What to leave out?”
I don’t understand everything that Lisi and El Naschie have written – we all seem to have different backgrounds and training. But I have seen similarities in our respective approaches, and that has allowed me to build on their ideas to a degree. Until I read Lisi’s paper, I was trying to build a GUT/ TOE based on Special Unitary (such as SU(5), etc.) or Special Orthogonal (such as SO(10), etc.) groups, and I had ignored the Exceptional groups. I originally thought they were too limited. But Lisi’s paper inspired me to suggest a new set of Quasi-Exceptional groups, and I am still developing that idea.
Lulu.com was a way to introduce my ideas as a book “New Approaches Towards a Grand Unified Theory”. And that book is also available on Amazon.com and the usual online retailers. The danger of publishing non-refereed science is that some might consider it vanity publishing or pseudo-science. I appreciate that El Naschie has helped get two of my papers published in the Journal of Chaos, Solitons and Fractals. Both of those papers included some fractal research. But my training is in Theoretical Particle Physics, and I probably won’t write about fractals in every paper.
Sincerely, Ray Munroe
this post was moved here from a different topic
report post as inappropriate
Thank you for the compliment. I have been working on these ideas for years, and I wasn’t sure if they were ready to publish or not. In 2005, I decided that I wanted to move forward with trying to publish. My prior publications were in Phys. Rev. D, so I tried that journal first. Their editorial response was “In general, Physical Review D does not publish theoretical speculations if they do not have rather substantial motivation or if they are based upon ad hoc assumptions. I regret to inform you that, in view of this, we cannot accept your manuscript for publication.” Over the next two years, I also tried to publish in European Physical Journal C, and I resubmitted the paper a couple of times (at different times) to each journal. Finally, in 2007, I decided that we live in an internet age where any idea can be distributed through tools like Lulu.com and blog sites. I know that my ideas are radical (although they yield the Standard Model at low energies), and I chose a radical form of distribution. I want to be accepted by the more conservative, refereed journals, but they never made it clear to me “What to leave in? What to leave out?”
I don’t understand everything that Lisi and El Naschie have written – we all seem to have different backgrounds and training. But I have seen similarities in our respective approaches, and that has allowed me to build on their ideas to a degree. Until I read Lisi’s paper, I was trying to build a GUT/ TOE based on Special Unitary (such as SU(5), etc.) or Special Orthogonal (such as SO(10), etc.) groups, and I had ignored the Exceptional groups. I originally thought they were too limited. But Lisi’s paper inspired me to suggest a new set of Quasi-Exceptional groups, and I am still developing that idea.
Lulu.com was a way to introduce my ideas as a book “New Approaches Towards a Grand Unified Theory”. And that book is also available on Amazon.com and the usual online retailers. The danger of publishing non-refereed science is that some might consider it vanity publishing or pseudo-science. I appreciate that El Naschie has helped get two of my papers published in the Journal of Chaos, Solitons and Fractals. Both of those papers included some fractal research. But my training is in Theoretical Particle Physics, and I probably won’t write about fractals in every paper.
Sincerely, Ray Munroe
this post was moved here from a different topic
report post as inappropriate
Dear Ray,
I heard about a similar story and more hair raising ones. Mitchell Feigenbaum, the pioneer of deterministic chaos and a man whose name is repeatedly mentioned in connection with a Nobel prize in nonlinear dynamics holds the record. He has something like a hundred papers rejected from Physics Review Letters and similar journals. You should read the book Chaos giving a history of nonlinear dynamics. It was a paradigm shift so everyone rejected it. I mean everyone from the old guard. Mohamed El Naschie had it much easier. He was a well established professor of engineering before he jumped into fractal spacetime via fractals and nonlinear dynamics. He was not subjected to the hassle of trying to publish a paper. Now it is too late for them to stop him. You can be sure there is a lot of intrigue going on and some have tried their best to curtail Chaos, Solitons & Fractals and reduce it to a run of the mill journal. Thank heavens they did not succeed until now. The establishment can be a very peculiar thing indeed. Many of their members were pioneers to start with. However as soon as they get themselves established their attitude changes drastically. Incidentally Otto Rossler, another pioneer of chaos and nonlinear dynamics, has lately been using El Naschie’s theory to attack the experiment with black holes at CERN. See Professor Rössler Takes On The LHC | Scientific Blogging . I hear that El Naschie is not happy about that at all. I think he keeps quiet because he likes Otto on a personal level a great deal. El Naschie is a complex guy. I do not mean that in any bad sense. I was just never able to work out whether he is conservative or avant-garde. In many respects he is extremely conservative. In fact the only avant-garde idea which came out of him was that of a Cantorian spacetime. I guess that is enough. Goldfain’s remarks were also basically correct. However I think Goldfain is overlooking something in the work of Edward Witten and Mohamed El Naschie. This is the so called T-duality. El Naschie generalized it to a model independent theory based on P-Adic expansion and P-Adic norm. In a nutshell the idea is as follows: When you have reached the ultimate energy you are back at the start with low energy. I mean you can investigate things with the same equation for both low and ultra high energy provided you make the necessary duality transformation. So you do not need to make an experiment at the Planck energy in order to know what will happen in the Planck region. All the best to you and Goldfain and hope to hear from you both soon.
this post was moved here from a different topic
report post as inappropriate
I heard about a similar story and more hair raising ones. Mitchell Feigenbaum, the pioneer of deterministic chaos and a man whose name is repeatedly mentioned in connection with a Nobel prize in nonlinear dynamics holds the record. He has something like a hundred papers rejected from Physics Review Letters and similar journals. You should read the book Chaos giving a history of nonlinear dynamics. It was a paradigm shift so everyone rejected it. I mean everyone from the old guard. Mohamed El Naschie had it much easier. He was a well established professor of engineering before he jumped into fractal spacetime via fractals and nonlinear dynamics. He was not subjected to the hassle of trying to publish a paper. Now it is too late for them to stop him. You can be sure there is a lot of intrigue going on and some have tried their best to curtail Chaos, Solitons & Fractals and reduce it to a run of the mill journal. Thank heavens they did not succeed until now. The establishment can be a very peculiar thing indeed. Many of their members were pioneers to start with. However as soon as they get themselves established their attitude changes drastically. Incidentally Otto Rossler, another pioneer of chaos and nonlinear dynamics, has lately been using El Naschie’s theory to attack the experiment with black holes at CERN. See Professor Rössler Takes On The LHC | Scientific Blogging . I hear that El Naschie is not happy about that at all. I think he keeps quiet because he likes Otto on a personal level a great deal. El Naschie is a complex guy. I do not mean that in any bad sense. I was just never able to work out whether he is conservative or avant-garde. In many respects he is extremely conservative. In fact the only avant-garde idea which came out of him was that of a Cantorian spacetime. I guess that is enough. Goldfain’s remarks were also basically correct. However I think Goldfain is overlooking something in the work of Edward Witten and Mohamed El Naschie. This is the so called T-duality. El Naschie generalized it to a model independent theory based on P-Adic expansion and P-Adic norm. In a nutshell the idea is as follows: When you have reached the ultimate energy you are back at the start with low energy. I mean you can investigate things with the same equation for both low and ultra high energy provided you make the necessary duality transformation. So you do not need to make an experiment at the Planck energy in order to know what will happen in the Planck region. All the best to you and Goldfain and hope to hear from you both soon.
this post was moved here from a different topic
report post as inappropriate
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.
this post was moved here from a different topic
report post as inappropriate
this post was moved here from a different topic
report post as inappropriate
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.
this post was moved here from a different topic
report post as inappropriate
this post was moved here from a different topic
report post as inappropriate
The best man to ask is Gerrard ‘tHooft. He is a Nobel laureate in physics from 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.
this post was moved here from a different topic
report post as inappropriate
this post was moved here from a different topic
report post as inappropriate
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.
this post was moved here from a different topic
report post as inappropriate
this post was moved here from a different topic
report post as inappropriate
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.
this post was moved here from a different topic
report post as inappropriate
this post was moved here from a different topic
report post as inappropriate
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.
this post was moved here from a different topic
report post as inappropriate
this post was moved here from a different topic
report post as inappropriate
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.
this post was moved here from a different topic
report post as inappropriate
this post was moved here from a different topic
report post as inappropriate
Everybody knows for whose account John Baez is working. He builds an army for slander made of Dr. Skoda the intimidator. He allied himself with Loll and her co-authors. It is all about money. It is all about illegal money. Everyone knows the relation between Scientific American and Nature. Nature is coming to the rescue of their sister magazine. Trying to capture a share of the market. Google is reporting the fabricated evidence of John Baez. What John Baez is doing is not bordering on criminality, it is criminal. He blocked his site and allows only his fellow intimidators and slanderers to write comments. We have Dodge City justice and all in the name of the main stream interest groups. Of course you are going to delete his comment, Mr. Lisi as you too have been drafted in. We have seen your comments in The n-Category Café hideaway. The truth will come out about all of you and justice will prevail. Go on with your slander and intimidation. You have all the rope in the world to hand yourselves.
this post was moved here from a different topic
report post as inappropriate
this post was moved here from a different topic
report post as inappropriate
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.
It 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
this post was moved here from a different topic
report post as inappropriate
It 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
this post was moved here from a different topic
report post as inappropriate
The Case of John Baez, Renate Loll and John Ambjorn
Following Prof. Keyes comments, I read the site of John Baez. There is not a shred of a doubt in my mind that Renate Loll and her colleagues have enticed their publisher Dr. Baez to launch this vicious attack against Prof. Mohamed El Naschie. I cannot fathom that any respectable Professor in a respectable University such as UC Riverside could indulge in such character assassination. Has Dr. Baez introduced a new profession to science: scientific vigilantism and paid for scientific assassins. It is a black day for science and academia.
D. Hume
this post was moved here from a different topic
report post as inappropriate
Following Prof. Keyes comments, I read the site of John Baez. There is not a shred of a doubt in my mind that Renate Loll and her colleagues have enticed their publisher Dr. Baez to launch this vicious attack against Prof. Mohamed El Naschie. I cannot fathom that any respectable Professor in a respectable University such as UC Riverside could indulge in such character assassination. Has Dr. Baez introduced a new profession to science: scientific vigilantism and paid for scientific assassins. It is a black day for science and academia.
D. Hume
this post was moved here from a different topic
report post as inappropriate
The case of John Baez n-Category Caf? concur with what has been written before and warn everybody from this shadowy caf?Fraud and forgery are the means. Comments are blocked for anyone who is not a member of the gang. Names and addresses are false and the allegations are too idiotic to have a trace of any truth in them. How could UC Riverside allow such garbage to be connected with their name?
R. Meyer
this post was moved here from a different topic
report post as inappropriate
R. Meyer
this post was moved here from a different topic
report post as inappropriate
If John Baez thinks anybody is stupid enough to believe the trash he is writing then I am truly looking forward to see him in a cross examination in an American Court. John Baez must have lost his marbles if he ever had any. What is incredible however is that his name is listed as a visitor in Spinoza Institute, University of Utrecht, Holland. Where did I hear this address before?
S. Justice
this post was moved here from a different topic
report post as inappropriate
S. Justice
this post was moved here from a different topic
report post as inappropriate
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.
this post was moved here from a different topic
report post as inappropriate
this post was moved here from a different topic
report post as inappropriate
The 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.
this post was moved here from a different topic
report post as inappropriate
this post was moved here from a different topic
report post as inappropriate
It is a shameless and blatant lie perpetuated by those who fear nothing more than the truth that Prof. Mohamed El Naschie publishes his papers exclusively in his Journal. You simply need to look into the International Journal of Theoretical Physics, vol. 37 no. 12 December 1998, pages 2935-2951. The paper in this Journal whose editor in chief is a highly respected professor of Georgia Tech., namely David Finkelstein is entitled: Superstrings, knots, and non-commutative geometry in E-Infinity space. The paper was received by the Journal on March the 21st of 1998. The address of Prof. El Naschie at this time was the Department of Applied Mathematics and Theoretical Physics in Cambridge, England. The paper was accepted at once as submitted by the editorial board which comprised names such as: Nobel Laureate in Physics, Steven Weinberg and Chen-Ning Yang in addition to Sir Roger Penrose, Sheldon Glashow and Yuval Neeman, Leonard Susskind of Stanford and a past teacher of Prof. Mohamed El Naschie, Carl .F. Von Weizsaecker . It is a profound paper with hardly any number theory involved. It is all set theory. Any person must ask himself why now this vicious campaign masterminded by John Baez of n-Category café blog and UC Riverside. Prof. El Naschie has been publishing his work for 17 years so again why now? The obvious answer is the present paper published in Scientific American by Renate Loll and her co-authors. The numerous comments on this site bear witness to the real motives than anything else which I could possibly say.
Sage
this post was moved here from a different topic
report post as inappropriate
Sage
this post was moved here from a different topic
report post as inappropriate
Why are all these people ganging against Mohamed El Naschie? Is it because of the name Mohamed? Barrack Obama was subjected to something similar because of his middle name Hussein. Are these powerful groups afraid that the Obama effect which took place on the political level could be repeated by El Naschie on the scientific level? I wonder.
this post was moved here from a different topic
report post as inappropriate
this post was moved here from a different topic
report post as inappropriate
Using 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.
When 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.
this post was moved here from a different topic
report post as inappropriate
When 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.
this post was moved here from a different topic
report post as inappropriate
Some 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.
I 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.
this post was moved here from a different topic
report post as inappropriate
I 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.
this post was moved here from a different topic
report post as inappropriate
I 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.
this post was moved here from a different topic
report post as inappropriate
this post was moved here from a different topic
report post as inappropriate
The 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.
this post was moved here from a different topic
report post as inappropriate
this post was moved here from a different topic
report post as inappropriate
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.
this post was moved here from a different topic
report post as inappropriate
this post was moved here from a different topic
report post as inappropriate
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
this post was moved here from a different topic
report post as inappropriate
Ayman Elokaby
Dept. of Physics
University of Alexandria
Egypt
this post was moved here from a different topic
report post as inappropriate
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
this post was moved here from a different topic
report post as inappropriate
G. Carroll
this post was moved here from a different topic
report post as inappropriate
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
this post was moved here from a different topic
report post as inappropriate
M. Gerrard
this post was moved here from a different topic
report post as inappropriate
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
this post was moved here from a different topic
report post as inappropriate
A.Jones
this post was moved here from a different topic
report post as inappropriate
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
this post was moved here from a different topic
report post as inappropriate
Ali Khan
this post was moved here from a different topic
report post as inappropriate
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.
this post was moved here from a different topic
report post as inappropriate
this post was moved here from a different topic
report post as inappropriate
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
this post was moved here from a different topic
report post as inappropriate
John Clarke
this post was moved here from a different topic
report post as inappropriate
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
this post was moved here from a different topic
report post as inappropriate
J. Lord
this post was moved here from a different topic
report post as inappropriate
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...
view entire post
view entire post
this post was moved here from a different topic
report post as inappropriate
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
this post was moved here from a different topic
report post as inappropriate
this post was moved here from a different topic
report post as inappropriate
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.
this post was moved here from a different topic
report post as inappropriate
this post was moved here from a different topic
report post as inappropriate
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.
this post was moved here from a different topic
report post as inappropriate
this post was moved here from a different topic
report post as inappropriate
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.
this post was moved here from a different topic
report post as inappropriate
this post was moved here from a different topic
report post as inappropriate
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.
this post was moved here from a different topic
report post as inappropriate
this post was moved here from a different topic
report post as inappropriate
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.
this post was moved here from a different topic
report post as inappropriate
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.
this post was moved here from a different topic
report post as inappropriate
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-quan
tum-universe and http://www.telegraph.co.uk/scienceandtechnology/science/scie
ncetopics/largehadroncollider/3314456/Surfer-dude-stuns-phys
icists-with-theory-of-everything.html#postComment.
this post was moved here from a different topic
report post as inappropriate
tum-universe and http://www.telegraph.co.uk/scienceandtechnology/science/scie
ncetopics/largehadroncollider/3314456/Surfer-dude-stuns-phys
icists-with-theory-of-everything.html#postComment.
this post was moved here from a different topic
report post as inappropriate
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.
this post was moved here from a different topic
report post as inappropriate
this post was moved here from a different topic
report post as inappropriate
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...
view entire post
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...
view entire post
this post was moved here from a different topic
report post as inappropriate
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...
view entire post
"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...
view entire post
this post was moved here from a different topic
report post as inappropriate
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, 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-quan
tum-universe and http://www.telegraph.co.uk/scienceandtechnology/science/scie
ncetopics/largehadroncollider/3314456/Surfer-dude-stuns-phys
icists-with-theory-of-everything.html#postComment.
this post was moved here from a different topic
report post as inappropriate
tum-universe and http://www.telegraph.co.uk/scienceandtechnology/science/scie
ncetopics/largehadroncollider/3314456/Surfer-dude-stuns-phys
icists-with-theory-of-everything.html#postComment.
this post was moved here from a different topic
report post as inappropriate
To All,
I think that both Lisi and El Naschie have something to contribute to modern physics, and I have an idea to end these smear campaigns.
I like Lisi’s E8, but consider this a “Minimal Theory of Everything”. If that sounds like an oxymoron to you, it also bothers me. It is clear to me that Lisi’s E8 is incomplete.
El Naschie has written volumes about E-infinity, Cantorian Spacetime, and Alpha Bar Theory. Of course, Eddington invented Alpha Bar Theory before El Naschie’s birth, but El Naschie is still trying to contribute to the idea, and won’t let it die. I can’t criticize that, because I also won’t let Dirac’s Large Numbers Hypothesis die. El Naschie has published so many ideas in so many different places (mostly different articles in “Chaos”) that he or one of his students should consider organizing all of the ideas into one book.
I’m still working on E12. The ideas that I published in my book last May are incomplete, and I know it. Eventually, I will figure out E8, E10, and E12; and finish the job that Lisi started (unless Lisi or someone else finishes it first). Then maybe I can examine the connections between E12 and E-infinity.
My solution to these smear campaigns is as follows: Someone should organize a conference and invite Lisi to talk about E8, invite El Naschie to talk about E-infinity, and invite me to talk about E12. I will gladly take the worst time slot. I understand there are still politics to determine who gets the best time slot – Lisi is probably more popular in America, and El Naschie is probably more popular in Europe and the Middle East.
Personally, I would like to meet both of these men. Give us several days together, and there’s no telling how we’ll shake up modern physics.
Sincerely, Ray Munroe
this post was moved here from a different topic
report post as inappropriate
I think that both Lisi and El Naschie have something to contribute to modern physics, and I have an idea to end these smear campaigns.
I like Lisi’s E8, but consider this a “Minimal Theory of Everything”. If that sounds like an oxymoron to you, it also bothers me. It is clear to me that Lisi’s E8 is incomplete.
El Naschie has written volumes about E-infinity, Cantorian Spacetime, and Alpha Bar Theory. Of course, Eddington invented Alpha Bar Theory before El Naschie’s birth, but El Naschie is still trying to contribute to the idea, and won’t let it die. I can’t criticize that, because I also won’t let Dirac’s Large Numbers Hypothesis die. El Naschie has published so many ideas in so many different places (mostly different articles in “Chaos”) that he or one of his students should consider organizing all of the ideas into one book.
I’m still working on E12. The ideas that I published in my book last May are incomplete, and I know it. Eventually, I will figure out E8, E10, and E12; and finish the job that Lisi started (unless Lisi or someone else finishes it first). Then maybe I can examine the connections between E12 and E-infinity.
My solution to these smear campaigns is as follows: Someone should organize a conference and invite Lisi to talk about E8, invite El Naschie to talk about E-infinity, and invite me to talk about E12. I will gladly take the worst time slot. I understand there are still politics to determine who gets the best time slot – Lisi is probably more popular in America, and El Naschie is probably more popular in Europe and the Middle East.
Personally, I would like to meet both of these men. Give us several days together, and there’s no telling how we’ll shake up modern physics.
Sincerely, Ray Munroe
this post was moved here from a different topic
report post as inappropriate
I 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 cafe and his crew. What is surprising is that they blocked my comment which was a reply to a comment posted by Rosser because I was supportive of El-Naschie. The trick, 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 this site are half truths and guess which half are they putting? They are connected to a blog known by the name 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.
A.Kayam
this post was moved here from a different topic
report post as inappropriate
A.Kayam
this post was moved here from a different topic
report post as inappropriate
Dear Barkley:
We know from Shahriar that you are a decent man and a poet. How on earth can you get entangled with these hooligans of the n-Category café? When Baez found no success in science proper, he turned out to become an internet thug launching campaigns against rich publishers and demanding protection money. This is not the environment that a man like you should be involved in. And why don’t you ask your best friend Tonu Puu what he thinks of Chaos, Solitons and Fractals. He said in writing that this is the most exciting project in his life that he has ever been involved in. And again M. El Naschie did not publish 300 papers, he published over 900 papers. He doesn’t hold the record in publishing in his own journal. The record holder is Prof. Leon Chua from University of Berkeley. His journal is published by World Scientific. The second is Naifeh. His Chaos and Bifurcation Journal was published by Kluwer and now by Springer If every editor in chief who publishes in his journal resigns, we will end up with no publications. But John Baez intention is extortion and obtaining money from Elsevier and other publishers. I must really say he is succeeding and one good thing which might come out of all that maybe the end of commercial publishing and better still the end of learned society publishing. Read the book: Faster than the Speed of Light where Physics Review is referred to as Physics Refuse and he called its Editorial Board the Physics Refuse Mafia. M. El Naschie is guilty of one thing: he is a gentleman who entered a profession where the word gentleman is foreign.
this post was moved here from a different topic
report post as inappropriate
We know from Shahriar that you are a decent man and a poet. How on earth can you get entangled with these hooligans of the n-Category café? When Baez found no success in science proper, he turned out to become an internet thug launching campaigns against rich publishers and demanding protection money. This is not the environment that a man like you should be involved in. And why don’t you ask your best friend Tonu Puu what he thinks of Chaos, Solitons and Fractals. He said in writing that this is the most exciting project in his life that he has ever been involved in. And again M. El Naschie did not publish 300 papers, he published over 900 papers. He doesn’t hold the record in publishing in his own journal. The record holder is Prof. Leon Chua from University of Berkeley. His journal is published by World Scientific. The second is Naifeh. His Chaos and Bifurcation Journal was published by Kluwer and now by Springer If every editor in chief who publishes in his journal resigns, we will end up with no publications. But John Baez intention is extortion and obtaining money from Elsevier and other publishers. I must really say he is succeeding and one good thing which might come out of all that maybe the end of commercial publishing and better still the end of learned society publishing. Read the book: Faster than the Speed of Light where Physics Review is referred to as Physics Refuse and he called its Editorial Board the Physics Refuse Mafia. M. El Naschie is guilty of one thing: he is a gentleman who entered a profession where the word gentleman is foreign.
this post was moved here from a different topic
report post as inappropriate
I concur with Philip Davis’ rational analysis of El Naschie’s case. I find the communiqué of the Editorial Board of Chaos, Solitons & Fractals enlightening and revealing. Unlike on other blogs, I am not afraid to say that I am completely persuaded that El Naschie is totally innocent. There is a great deal more here than what meets the eyes. First this campaign, masterminded in the n-Category...
view entire post
view entire post
this post was moved here from a different topic
report post as inappropriate
I concur with Philip Davis’ rational analysis of El Naschie’s case. I find the communiqué of the Editorial Board of Chaos, Solitons & Fractals enlightening and revealing. Unlike on other blogs, I am not afraid to say that I am completely persuaded that El Naschie is totally innocent. There is a great deal more here than what meets the eyes. First this campaign, masterminded in the n-Category...
view entire post
view entire post
this post was moved here from a different topic
report post as inappropriate
To Ray Munroe,
I and the whole science world should thank you sincerely for injecting a true voice of reason. I know others on other sites have intimated such an action of getting people together although I am not sure their comments were allowed to remain.
You are quite right - that is the only honest and fair way to handle scientific differences but then I doubt very much that any of those shouting so loudly here are really interested in scientific differences at all. If only that were the case. This is not a scientific debate at all - it is merely a witch hunt from the big interested parties. Rather like Obabma saying that cetain spending in the US must end even when it is driven by interest groups.
I wish you all the success in the world with having a true scientific debate Ray. You have restored my faith that there are some true science gentlemen left in this muddy academic community.
this post was moved here from a different topic
report post as inappropriate
I and the whole science world should thank you sincerely for injecting a true voice of reason. I know others on other sites have intimated such an action of getting people together although I am not sure their comments were allowed to remain.
You are quite right - that is the only honest and fair way to handle scientific differences but then I doubt very much that any of those shouting so loudly here are really interested in scientific differences at all. If only that were the case. This is not a scientific debate at all - it is merely a witch hunt from the big interested parties. Rather like Obabma saying that cetain spending in the US must end even when it is driven by interest groups.
I wish you all the success in the world with having a true scientific debate Ray. You have restored my faith that there are some true science gentlemen left in this muddy academic community.
this post was moved here from a different topic
report post as inappropriate
John Baez Esquire, what about Leon Chua? He published far more than El Naschie and Nayfeh combined in his own journal of Bifurcation and Chaos However the owner of World Scientific, the publisher, is your own publisher and friend. Did you sign an agreement with him not to disclose details about Chuas self publishing or have you signed a contract to undermine Chaos, Solitons and Fractals so that World scientific can take its share in the market. I think your behavior is disgraceful and we will make sure that everybody knows really who you are.
this post was moved here from a different topic
report post as inappropriate
this post was moved here from a different topic
report post as inappropriate
We have moved posts discussing Mohamed El Naschie to this page. (Off-topic posts were moved from An Exceptionally Simple Personal FAQ Blog and Forum, as well as the Pieces of E8 Forum.)
K Rajanna
FQXi
report post as inappropriate
K Rajanna
FQXi
report post as inappropriate
Heavenly justice of the mainsteam club? You probably know Laurent Nottale an exceptionally gifted and very serious French astrophysicist. Laurent is financially almost broke because he worked out the basic principle of fractal spacetime and scale relativity against the resistance of French mainstream physics. But now believe it or not, Dr. Renate Loll of Utrecht University received a prize of 1.25 million euro for publishing the work of Nottale disguised in the form of computer simulation. This happened in academia, not in Palermo. The Dutch authorities should look into this matter. Holland is well known for its accountability. Even the Queen’s father was brought to justice because of the Lockheed affair. I do not think that Utrecht University and the German national Renate Loll should enjoy immunity.
report post as inappropriate
report post as inappropriate
I'd like to point out another instance of inappropriate stealing of the ideas of Nottale, Ord, and El Naschie - and that even for commercial purposes: A company is making profit of Fractal Spacetime under the label of "Global Scaling", without giving any credit at all to its true inventors!
http://globalscalingapplications.com/
http://www.gl
obalscalingtheory.com/
report post as inappropriate
http://globalscalingapplications.com/
http://www.gl
obalscalingtheory.com/
report post as inappropriate
Stephen, it is one thing when someone like Hartmut Muller, Ph.D. tries to make a living and someone like Prof. Dr. Renate Loll, the right hand of a Nobel Laureate working in Utrecht, Holland simply took over the work of Laurent Nottale and cash for it 1.25 million euro. If this is how the elite in Europe are behaving then everything is possible and we could not blame the young and the needy for taking shortcuts even when it is on the wild side. It is not only Prof. Renate Loll’s mistake. It must be the entire funding system which is at fault. The case Renate Loll, J. Ambjorn and Jurkeiwicz will haunt us for a while, I am afraid. All this barking created by the n-Category café will not divert from the seriousness of the real situation which forced otherwise regular scientists to fall short of the ethics normally expected from them.
report post as inappropriate
report post as inappropriate
Looking for the numerous amazing articles of El naschie, I found a wonderful one whose title is
“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...
view entire post
“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...
view entire post
report post as inappropriate
One 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.
report post as inappropriate
report post as inappropriate
El naschie using his own journal as
a 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.
I’m 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.
report post as inappropriate
a 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.
I’m 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.
report post as inappropriate
To St
It 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?co
ntribId=52&sessionId=32&resId=0&materialId=slides&confId=9
Bu
t 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.sh
tml
Can the great man explain for us.
report post as inappropriate
It 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?co
ntribId=52&sessionId=32&resId=0&materialId=slides&confId=9
Bu
t 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.sh
tml
Can the great man explain for us.
report post as inappropriate
This is a direct response to the previous comment signed by An which is probably an abbreviation for Any Nonsense. Good try any case. You gave some effort to sound like John Baez. But you are not even in this league. You are Said Salah El Din Hamed Alnashaie kicked out recently from Penn State University and searching desperately for a job anywhere and found only one on the internet. You have been convicted with your wife Shadia El Shishini for forgery and theft. This is only a short introduction. The rest everyone in Egypt knows. Of course you got some help from the nonsense published on the n-Category café and maybe one like Khalil helped you in writing terminology and scientific terms of which you are totally ignorant. You are surprised about the meaning of universality classes because you don’t have a clue what this is. And we are not surprised that you don’t. You should stick to the business in environment which you use with your clique to defraud Egypt of the American aid paid to Egypt and emitted back to your accounts in the U.S. You would like to fish in murky waters regarding King Saud University and King Abdallah Institute for Nanotechnology. Why don’t you write to them directly Genius? Your inferiority complex and deadly jealousy is so manifest that one does not know whether to pity you or ………The words appropriate to describe you are unprintable. You hate the great man, don’t you? Ahmed Zuweil got his Nobel prize in Chemistry although you were ahead of him and went to engineering and you got a two- year prison sentence with your wife Shadia El Shishini of the Department of Chemical Engineering, Cairo University. Ahmed Zuweil wants to be the president of Egypt. This is a legal ambition at least. And what do you want to be Said? Your life ambition is to destroy Mohamed. Poor soul! I pity you. Etaki Shar man ahsanet eleyeh
report post as inappropriate
report post as inappropriate
Said Hamed Elnashaie is a chemical engineer. He is an extremely good Professor and when he is himself an extremely good person. Unfortunately Said is suffering from schizophrenic paranoia. It is a very complex psychological condition and a terrible mental affliction. It is hereditary and no one knows when it would hit and in which generation. There are different forms of this condition. But this is neither the time nor the place to discuss it. I sincerely hope he will overcome it. I am not sure he is really the author of the ridiculous comment signed An. Maybe someone is using him. But Said doesn’t understand anything about high energy physics. The last paragraph of his comment, if not copied blindly from a text book, indicates that the author has some knowledge of particle physics. If this is correct, then he should understand that Mohamed El Naschie was able to find the particle content corresponding to what he called in his set theoretical foundation of E-Infinity the universality of all universal class. The classical particle content of David Gross and his colleagues is 8064 particle like states. In El Naschie transfinite version corresponding to his universality class, revised this figure to 8872. If Said is the writer I don’t think this will make any sense to him. If one of his physicist friends is the writer of the comment, then I also would not think that he will understand because it requires some knowledge of Cantor set theory as well as particle physics. The tragedy is that particle physics on its own could never solve particle physics and particle physicists know nothing except particle physics. To overcome that, you have to be like Mohamed El Naschie – at home both in particle physics and non linear dynamics as well as set theory.
report post as inappropriate
report post as inappropriate
This 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.
report post as inappropriate
report post as inappropriate
I 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...
view entire post
view entire post
report post as inappropriate
Good Lord! I didn’t realize he is from Princeton. Dr. Ben Webster is dragging the good name of Princeton through mud. Is that what he learned from his Professors at Princeton when they have just given him his Ph.D. last year? That explains exactly why I am against all these blogs that are filled with anger and frustration and nothing more. The factual and intellectual content is more often than not zero. Ben, if you start your life this way, you will end up like John Baez or was he your external examiner? Search for other ideals son. I doubt Princeton would take someone from UCR, California to be an external examiner. To be in Princeton is a privilege. Don’t turn into a blog maniac. Leave this business to those who have nothing better to do. This is a well meant advice. You have defamed El Naschie enough to eternalize him as a victim of the blogs. From what I read about him he couldn’t care less about all what you write. It is you who is harming himself. Remember Princeton is a privilege and to receive a writ for defamatory allegation is not looked kindly upon in Princeton.
report post as inappropriate
report post as inappropriate
To 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.
report post as inappropriate
report post as inappropriate
Mohamed El Naschie is a fraud, plain and simple. If he isn't, why list numerous high profile affiliations that have publically stated he has never had anything to do with them? And 300+ questionable papers published in your own journal...? Come on people, open you eyes!
report post as inappropriate
report post as inappropriate
I 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 Naschie’s, Ord and Nottale’s 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 ‘tHooft’s 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 Naschie’s 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.
report post as inappropriate
report post as inappropriate
To KT If you name is not Said or John Baez and you are plain simple and truly naïve which I doubt very much, then you should know that all the affiliations of Mohamed El Naschie are correct. He is not only the Principal Adviser of KACST he helped build KACST. He is Adviser to King Saud University on Nanotechnology and was one of the main scientists who put King Saud University on the map 35 years ago. He is a Distinguished Fellow of the University of Frankfurt and there is a signed and sealed affidavit by the Director which will be prayed in the High Court in London to which you are courteously invited. He does not have only 300 papers but almost 900. His Ph.D. in 1974 gives in the references three published papers by him as a student. After nearly three years of obtaining his Ph.D. he already had 50 published papers. Before establishing Chaos, Solitons & Fractals he had already published 200 papers and he was an Editor in many journals including ZAMM, the legendary applied mechanics journal established by von Mieses and Prantel if these famous names mean anything to you. El Naschie did not use Chaos, Solitons Fractals, he created it out of nothing and by publishing in it, he made it famous. El Naschie was a full professor and well know nationally and internationally before Chaos, Solitons & Fractals ever existed. He neither needed funding nor promotion and that is what makes you, Baez and Said eat their hearts. El Naschie did not want to publish papers, he was establishing a field and he did, almost single handedly. There is nothing philistines can do or write that will change this and this ‘Come on people’ is typical for the mad man Said.
Boem
report post as inappropriate
Boem
report post as inappropriate
I 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.
El 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 wasn’t 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.
report post as inappropriate
El 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 wasn’t 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.
report post as inappropriate
If 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.
I 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.sh
tml
In fact it reflects badly on these countries if this was true.
report post as inappropriate
I 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.sh
tml
In fact it reflects badly on these countries if this was true.
report post as inappropriate
To Pm What a way to spend your Christmas Eve. Is it devil worshipping? Oh boy, you must be in a true state of cramp and desperation Said Salah El Din Hamad Elnashaie. That is your name my boy and since you are so proud of your deeds for which you have been a fugitive in the US for nine years and returned again to Egypt when your last employer sacked you, then you should say it. Pennsylvania State University sacked you because you were arrested and convicted in Egypt on your return thinking you will get away with it. You are a man who conspired with his wife Shadia Al Shishini from the Dept. of Chemical Eng. University of Cairo from which you were also sacked, I say you conspired to steal from your own late mother and that to finance the films of her daughter Jihan Fadel. Your late mother had to pay for (Sahar Al Lialli). A man with your moral values should find another occupation than trying to destroy everybody who knows the truth about him. You know what, you must have been sacked again. A cowardly rat will always find a place and you have probably found one but then you were sacked again. Whenever there is a flare up, the reason is that you have been sacked. Then you hold everybody except yourself responsible for your own misery. But you are now getting yourself into a spiders web of spies, drug traffickers and criminals. Once upon a time your were respectable. At least that is what we thought of you but now Said you are beyond good and bad. You are truly beyond redemption. I am sure all these words do not mean anything to you. You can spend the rest of what ever is left of your life trying to destroy Mohamed El Naschie because he is a better man than you and he is a better human being than you and he is a better scientist than you. The reason is that he does not spend his time like you and unfortunately also me now, hiding behind a computer and living in a fantasy world of illusions and revenge. You are a pathetic figure Said, not worth a bullet of mercy. Go and find yourself a life. I for one am now going to go out and enjoy the evening in the Big Apple. Your questions will not be answered Said. Not on the net but in the Courts of justice. Take as much rope as you want and you know what you are doing with it. So long.
report post as inappropriate
report post as inappropriate
The 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...
view entire post
view entire post
report post as inappropriate
The comment by AB is logical. I know very well that the Chinese Academy of Science wants to control all Chinese Scientists. This is the communist party policy. They got an old Professor, Chuo-Bin Lin and a double agent working for Elsevier Charon Duermeijer to establish a journal called Communications in Nonlinear Science and Numerical Simulation. This is not an Elsevier Journal. It is a very weak and old Chinese Journal and they now want to make it the top journal in nonlinear science. However the real reason is the large money revenue coming from translating Chinese articles into English. Elsevier of course doesn’t mind this unethical behavior as long as they make millions of dollars. That is the real story. It is a scandal which will harm all commercial publishing. I know from friends working in China with Professor Mohamed El Naschie that he was against this project. I guess his enemies conspired with Elsevier to get rid of him.
Albert Chen
report post as inappropriate
Albert Chen
report post as inappropriate
All 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.
Al Cardenas
report post as inappropriate
Al Cardenas
report post as inappropriate
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 Thom’s 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 Egyptian’s 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.
report post as inappropriate
report post as inappropriate
During 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 Eddington’s lecture was reprinted in the fifties but I forget where. I was reminded of all that after what I read about Mohamed El Naschie’s 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 Naschie’s work with the necessary objectivity and seriousness befitting true scientists.
J.T., Oxbridge
report post as inappropriate
J.T., Oxbridge
report post as inappropriate
There is another site connected to the spider web of John Baez and his accomplices. I am sure you remember him. He is the man who proves mathematical theorems using Apache techniques, namely where there is smoke there is fire. The site is called Ars Technica. One particularlz idiotic author is a pompous Chris Lee. He likes you to think of him as a Chinese with a Christian name. In reality you guessed it, he is John Baez, self appointed jack of all sciences, master of none. The amazing this is how these internet holigans got hold of Nature. The method is simple. You create a great deal of noise and smoke on the internet. Second using your students you inform a serious journal like Nature via unscrupulous little journals. Once Nature publishes it, you feed it back to the internet. Subsequently you are paid either by an international publisher or those who obtained prizes in the millions by plagarizing work which they rejected by the main stream journals only to publish it themselves under different labels and appropriate decorations. One day the internet will be accrdited with destoying science and integrity as we used to know them.
report post as inappropriate
report post as inappropriate
Believe it or not
El 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 –548
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 references 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 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."
report post as inappropriate
El 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 –548
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 references 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 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."
report post as inappropriate
To 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.
It 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. Can’t 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.
report post as inappropriate
It 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. Can’t 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.
report post as inappropriate
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...
view entire post
view entire post
report post as inappropriate
Dear Jimmy Hs, You might be even more amazed to know that Elsevier have published my own paper twice. They did that without even asking me. I was happy to see my paper in print then two months later I found the same paper printed again. When I made a fuss and complained they told me this is a frequent mistake because of on line submissions and automisation. When you dig you find this is not true. It is out sourcing. They are searching for cheap and cheaper ways of typesetting their journals. Some of the typesetters do not even speak English. It is really rediculous. None the less Elsevier remains the best among commercial publishers. This does not answer your comment. However I think you are making too much out of numbers of published papers. The number of published papers is in my view neither here nor there and could not be taken as an indication for the quality or lack of it. There are people who tend to be prolific. Other people tend to republish the same work several times, albeit with some modifications. Witten is one of those but there are less important scientists who are exactly the same. El Naschie tends to publish very short papers. It seems to me that he concentrates on ideas which is why he can write so many papers. There are people who cut a work into many small papers in order to get promotion and fulfil the quota required by their respective University Board for promotion. That I find far worse than publishing the same paper many times. Either way, I do not care. What I find important is the content of a paper and this is another story altogether.
report post as inappropriate
report post as inappropriate
RF - Your comments are wasted on Jimmy. This is just another one of John Baez sock puppets. Actually the language is not even of the level of Baez. I think it is Said Elnashaie, the ignoramous. If you would have the faintest idea about what you are talking Said, you would not have written what you have. You are making an absolute fool of yourself. But what should we expect from a man who was ready to stand behind bars in criminal court so that the daughter of the man who was sleeping with his wife can produce a porno film. Such a person like you Said is beyond good and bad. And yes, for high energy physicists, Witten is far more established than classical mechanics. In fact true high energy physicists have forgotten classical mechanics. They can think only in terms of quantum mechanics. You on the other hand can think only in terms of hatred, jealousy and the inustice given to you on the day of your birth by having such a repulsive personality. Even your girlfriend, Amani who married your friend 35 years ago was quoted as saying 'Thank God she did not end with you'. You are a bundle of inferiority complexes, repulsive, mean, greedy and egotistical. Leave this site before I put your picture behind bars for everyone to see. This is a site for scientific debate. Take your problems to the shrink of your neighborhood. Leave this site or else.
report post as inappropriate
report post as inappropriate
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...
view entire post
view entire post
report post as inappropriate
I was hit by a totally idiotic contradictory expression describing Mohamed El Naschie’s theory as a Cantorian continuum. OK. The writer was one of those pretentious journalists flattering themselves by pretending to be science writers. His name was Christopher or something similar which is not important. What is important is that a Cantor space can never be continuous. It is manifestly...
view entire post
view entire post
report post as inappropriate
The objections on the works of El naschie don't stem from his claimed 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,...
view entire post
very decent to say that his works are wrong,...
view entire post
report post as inappropriate
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...
view entire post
view entire post
report post as inappropriate
“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”.
report post as inappropriate
report post as inappropriate
• Said, 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 penniless 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.
report post as inappropriate
report post as inappropriate
John 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.
report post as inappropriate
report post as inappropriate
I 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: http://www.phys.uu.nl/~loll/Web/title/title.html It reminds me of the great poem by William Blake, only upside down.
report post as inappropriate
report post as inappropriate
John 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?
report post as inappropriate
report post as inappropriate
Most of you who have read all this nonsense wonder what it is all about. Who is Prof. Said and who is Prof. An and all that. Well here is the CV of Prof. An. I am afraid it is only a certificate of conviction but at least you can guess what is behind this nauseating campaign instead of what is essentially a scientific debate. Prof. An is Prof. Said Elnashaie who invested in the one man internet army of John Baez. Please log into the following where you will find English and Arabic explanations. (LINKS) I think the case of John Baez, Renate Loll and their associates is now ripe to go to the State Prosecution of their respective countries. I understand they are now threatening to launch another defamatory article in Scientific American. We take this very seriously and why not? The sooner the full truth will come out, the better and that is all that we aspire to.
report post as inappropriate
report post as inappropriate
To 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!
report post as inappropriate
report post as inappropriate
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...
view entire post
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...
view entire post
report post as inappropriate
In this concluding comment, I am going to show in a rigorous
mathematical 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...
view entire post
mathematical 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...
view entire post
report post as inappropriate
• To Mr. Gm who previously called himself in Scientific America Dr. dor, An, Said Elnashaie - Is it that far already? Congratulating yourself. You can analyze letters? Why don t you analyze yourself? Jihan Fadel, your so called daughter, who appears continuously defending you on TV could produce a film for you .. Analyze That Part III & It could become like Sahar Allialli, bring you fame and fortune and render unfeasible to continue the mad course you have taken. Imagine all that disgrace to yourself, your family and your country because you cannot bring yourself to admit a single, by comparison, little mistake nine years ago. You attempted to steal from your mother and your attempt failed. Make a U-turn, admit the truth. Anything is better than what you have done to yourself. But that is how you always were. You charge like a bull and you think later. And you are vicious. Even at the age of 5 you almost killed a boy in the school who was better than you in the class. When we joked about it once and you were already 50 you became very angry in the garden of the house which you built from the money which Mohamed made available to you through Saudi Arabia. At the age of 18 you caused the unfortunate creature whose name I will not name to jump out of a window in front of a police station in Kobri Algalaa at Giza. I also sat on this unfortunate day in the Court and saw you behind bars, standing besides drug traffickers, murderers and pimps and wondered how on earth is this possible. How could you bring yourself to that? I remembered how you were praising Mohamed El Naschie day and night when we were working together in Saudi Arabia. You overdo it in every respect. However you never denied that Mohamed El Naschie is the one who saved you when all your communist party comrades abandoned you and your weight reduced to barely 60 kilos. Your eyes were constantly shifting and you could hardly move or give a lecture. This was a relapse of what happened to you when you were in Belfast when you married this unfortunate girl from Ireland. You were also ungrateful for all what she did for you. Then you ended with the convicted Shadia Shashini, mother of Jihan Fadel. It is very important that the people around you can control your condition and these two ladies controlled it alright. Now you are one who has flown over the cuckoo s nest and I see no chance what so ever that you come back. We know you very well Said and we know all your tricks and the degree of your sick soul and mind. We know that there is nothing beyond you, even murder and your co-conspirators will realize the danger in which they are, being with you and will abandon you sooner or later. It provides me no pleasure writing these letters whether in Scientific American or on the blogs of Haraket Kafaya where some of your infamous communist comrades are hiding under the name of some Muslim brothers. A conglomerate of desperados.
report post as inappropriate
report post as inappropriate
• This is a direct response to Gm who called himself in Scientific American Dr. An and Dr. dor and Dr. Said. 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 three persons or one 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 and Dr. Said. It is therefore your responsibility towards our scientific civilization to give your full name(s) and address, telephone number and more importantly, your affiliation and the department in which you 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. You seem like a responsible lot who keep a watching brief day and night on the most important affair on this planet, namely Mohamed El Naschie, Chaos, Solitons & Fractals and how Jihan Fadel is going to get the money for her next hot film. I hope Jeffrey forgives me for taking over his logic and twisting it to fit the twisted minds of certain twisted souls. Merci.
report post as inappropriate
report post as inappropriate
• To say that Said Elnashaie is the brother of Mohamed El Naschie is a complete blatant lie in more than one sense. It is part and parcel of the viscous defamation campaign which started with the publication of the article of Renate Loll, Jan Ambjorn and Jerzy Jurkiewicz in Scientific American. I challenge anyone including Said Elnashaie to produce a birth certificate with the name Elnashie or Elnashaie or any similarly sounding name in Arabic or English. The real name of Dr. Said is Said Salah Hamid. He has adopted the name Elnashaie like he adopted many other things. It is alone the kindness of Mohamed El Naschie that he did not prosecute him in the Courts of Justice to stop him using this name.
report post as inappropriate
report post as inappropriate
It is quite clear that Said Elnashaie is behind this vicious campaign against Prof. El Naschie. He is hiding behind Mr. An and lashing out a lot of hatred. Really Mr. An all what you are writing is not serving your case. On the contrary, it is quite clear to all the readers of this site and others that your argument is baseless and vindictive. You don’t have a case whatsoever against Prof. El Naschie. Your problem is personal jealousy and hatred. Do I need to remind you Mr. Said Elnashaie that your personal profile is despicable? In case you forgot, here is your personal profile or better still your certificate of conviction: http:/thecaseofsaidelnashaie.blogspot.com
report post as inappropriate
report post as inappropriate
In this site you are Mr. Gm - Are you affiliated with General Motors. I dont think they have any use for you. But your hatred has gone out of all proportions. Poor soul! We think you are pathetic. It is time you cut the crap and face reality. You are a loser Gm or Said Elnashaie and only losers behave the way you do. Try to exercise some self control and refrain from this unfounded campaign. Again your allegations are false and you are exposing a lot of characteristics that we humans shy away from. You are a bad reminder of all that is evil and your comments serve no purpose. I personally have the utmost respect and admiration for the work and person of Mohamed El Naschie.
report post as inappropriate
report post as inappropriate
This is a direct response to An and now Gm and his silly comment posted on Feb. 28 in Scientific American Blog and all his other false allegations. We think it is time you call it quits. We all respect and admire Prof. El Naschie for his integrity and adroitness. His scientific feat is indisputable and there is no way on earth you are going to sway our minds. You have been trying so hard and so vehemently to smear him by your false allegations. You are the fraud. He never plagiarized nor cheated. His scientific contribution is a paradigm shift and people with little minds and sick souls like you and your puppets will never come to grips with it. Besides you and those in cahoots with you are not in a position to judge Prof. El Naschie. Eat your heart out and no matter how hard you persist and try, we will not be swayed.
Advocates
report post as inappropriate
Advocates
report post as inappropriate
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 arithmetic 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.
report post as inappropriate
report post as inappropriate
Dear Ayman,
In my book, New Approaches Towards a Grand Unified Theory (free partial preview at http://www.lulu.com/browse/preview.php?fCID=1296633 (it may take a minute to download). I modelled the low-energy couplings with Quantum Statistical Grand Unification (QSGUT). However, to work back to the GUT-scale couplings requires non-equilibrium quantum statistical mechanics, and gets tricky.
I have the greatest respect for Prof. Steven Weinberg, and would normally take his number over any other available. However, in my studies, I am convinced that both the Weak and Gravitational forces are more complicated than the Standard Model, or even the Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Model.
Fundamentally, I have no problem with using fractal physics to solve this problem. E-infinity almost implies an infinite number of dimensions, but I expect all but four of these dimensions to have fractal effects, and to sum to a finite number of equivalent dimensions. I am familiar with Prof. Mohamed El Naschie's observation that 26 and 10 dimensions are important to String Theory, and the ratio 26/10 is approximately the golden-ratio-squared.
Nevertheless, without a good model of this specific problem, it seems that we are pulling important numbers out of thin air.
Good luck in your efforts. This is an interesting number. It must be modelled correctly.
Sincerely, Ray Munroe
report post as inappropriate
In my book, New Approaches Towards a Grand Unified Theory (free partial preview at http://www.lulu.com/browse/preview.php?fCID=1296633 (it may take a minute to download). I modelled the low-energy couplings with Quantum Statistical Grand Unification (QSGUT). However, to work back to the GUT-scale couplings requires non-equilibrium quantum statistical mechanics, and gets tricky.
I have the greatest respect for Prof. Steven Weinberg, and would normally take his number over any other available. However, in my studies, I am convinced that both the Weak and Gravitational forces are more complicated than the Standard Model, or even the Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Model.
Fundamentally, I have no problem with using fractal physics to solve this problem. E-infinity almost implies an infinite number of dimensions, but I expect all but four of these dimensions to have fractal effects, and to sum to a finite number of equivalent dimensions. I am familiar with Prof. Mohamed El Naschie's observation that 26 and 10 dimensions are important to String Theory, and the ratio 26/10 is approximately the golden-ratio-squared.
Nevertheless, without a good model of this specific problem, it seems that we are pulling important numbers out of thin air.
Good luck in your efforts. This is an interesting number. It must be modelled correctly.
Sincerely, Ray Munroe
report post as inappropriate
Dear Dr. Munroe
I am afraid you are more polite than correct. The problem is clear. Prof. Steven Weinberg has made a mistake. It is easy to make mistakes. What is not easy to find it so quickly as Ayman Elokaby did. Actually I should say as Mohamed El Naschie did because he was the first to notice that in a paper entitled Non-perturbative solution to unification or something similar. It is somewhere in Chaos, Solitons & Fractals. What I remember exactly is how easily it can be shown that 17.5 of Weinberg must be wrong. Here is the back of an envelope analogy: You have three fundamental inverse couplings according to E-infinity exact renormalization equation. These are 60 for electromagnetism, 30 for the weak force, 9 for the strong force and 1 for Planckian coupling. The Planckian coupling goes into the strong force and gives 10. So you have 3 crossings. 60, 30 is the first crossing. 60 and 10 is the second crossing. Finally 30 and 10 is the third crossing. The average of two sets is in a sense the unification of the two sets. Now take the geometrical average of 60 multiplied with 30. It is the square root and gives roughly 42 and a little bit. Similarly 60 and 10 gives 24 and a little bit. Finally 30 and 10 gives 17 and a little bit. To unify all crossings in one point you need to take the third root out of the three averages. That way you find 26 and a little bit. The inescapable conclusion is that the 17.5 of Steve Weinberg is incorrect. It is not a grand unification. It is a partial unification. The equations which enable El Naschie to do the trick are based on Feigenbaum’s golden mean renormalization group. It is exact. To show that we solve for the inverse coupling of Sommerfeld electromagnetic coupling. On the right hand side you have 60 times the inverse golden mean which is 1.6188033989 plus the 30 plus the 9 plus the 1. This gives exactly 137.082039325 which is the exact theoretical value of E-infinity theory. You can call the theory foliation or fuzzy or fractal. It all boils down to the same. These are all homomorphic notions as pointed out on many occasions by Prof. Mohamed El Naschie. Hope this clarifies the matter once and for all time.
Ahmed
report post as inappropriate
I am afraid you are more polite than correct. The problem is clear. Prof. Steven Weinberg has made a mistake. It is easy to make mistakes. What is not easy to find it so quickly as Ayman Elokaby did. Actually I should say as Mohamed El Naschie did because he was the first to notice that in a paper entitled Non-perturbative solution to unification or something similar. It is somewhere in Chaos, Solitons & Fractals. What I remember exactly is how easily it can be shown that 17.5 of Weinberg must be wrong. Here is the back of an envelope analogy: You have three fundamental inverse couplings according to E-infinity exact renormalization equation. These are 60 for electromagnetism, 30 for the weak force, 9 for the strong force and 1 for Planckian coupling. The Planckian coupling goes into the strong force and gives 10. So you have 3 crossings. 60, 30 is the first crossing. 60 and 10 is the second crossing. Finally 30 and 10 is the third crossing. The average of two sets is in a sense the unification of the two sets. Now take the geometrical average of 60 multiplied with 30. It is the square root and gives roughly 42 and a little bit. Similarly 60 and 10 gives 24 and a little bit. Finally 30 and 10 gives 17 and a little bit. To unify all crossings in one point you need to take the third root out of the three averages. That way you find 26 and a little bit. The inescapable conclusion is that the 17.5 of Steve Weinberg is incorrect. It is not a grand unification. It is a partial unification. The equations which enable El Naschie to do the trick are based on Feigenbaum’s golden mean renormalization group. It is exact. To show that we solve for the inverse coupling of Sommerfeld electromagnetic coupling. On the right hand side you have 60 times the inverse golden mean which is 1.6188033989 plus the 30 plus the 9 plus the 1. This gives exactly 137.082039325 which is the exact theoretical value of E-infinity theory. You can call the theory foliation or fuzzy or fractal. It all boils down to the same. These are all homomorphic notions as pointed out on many occasions by Prof. Mohamed El Naschie. Hope this clarifies the matter once and for all time.
Ahmed
report post as inappropriate
It is nice to see that Nature has taken out the defamatory article of Schiermeier. I have never in my life witnessed such a despicable and coordinated attack on any scientist like that which was launched against Prof. El Naschie. Even the anti-Semitic attacks on Einstein at least pretended to have some science to them. The attacks on Mohamed El Naschie are so shameless that they do not even pretend to have any scientific content. It is pure hatred, envy and racism.
report post as inappropriate
report post as inappropriate
From Sciam:
Droesser's article is back with only minor changes . One can check the two following sites:
http://www.scienceblogs.de/mathlog/2009/03/wissenschaf
tsjournalismus-und-pressefreiheit-update.php (checking changes).
http://www.zeit.de/2009/03/N-El-Naschie (new versions with minor changes)
As the great man El nashice said "This is Germany, a center of modern civilization where truthfulness prevails at the end. "
Soon, the same will happen in nature's article. When the nature article is back we may tell you. In any case the cat is out of the bag. I don't see that El Naschie has much to gain by spending money on lawyers to take down the Nature article. Furthermore, his reactions confirm that he is a fraud which is selfevident even for a blind.
report post as inappropriate
Droesser's article is back with only minor changes . One can check the two following sites:
http://www.scienceblogs.de/mathlog/2009/03/wissenschaf
tsjournalismus-und-pressefreiheit-update.php (checking changes).
http://www.zeit.de/2009/03/N-El-Naschie (new versions with minor changes)
As the great man El nashice said "This is Germany, a center of modern civilization where truthfulness prevails at the end. "
Soon, the same will happen in nature's article. When the nature article is back we may tell you. In any case the cat is out of the bag. I don't see that El Naschie has much to gain by spending money on lawyers to take down the Nature article. Furthermore, his reactions confirm that he is a fraud which is selfevident even for a blind.
report post as inappropriate
Dear Ahmed (I assume my friend, Nasr?),
Thank you for describing the El Naschie/ El-Okaby unification model to me.
As you know, I am not a proponent of the Standard Model or any minor variations thereof (Supersymmetry included). It is a 4-dimensional model that works below the TeV scale, and that's all (but that's enough for current experiments). As such, I choose not to integrate the Renormalization Group Equations back to the GUT scale as most High Energy Physicists would (this also would not include gravity). Any new, and as yet unknown, fermions or force bosons would affect the end result.
I am trying to derive this number from my ideas on Lie Algebra GUT's and Quantum Statistical Grand Unification. My preliminary results are closer to the El-Okaby number than the Weinberg number, but I need to double-check these results.
Sincerely, Ray Munroe
report post as inappropriate
Thank you for describing the El Naschie/ El-Okaby unification model to me.
As you know, I am not a proponent of the Standard Model or any minor variations thereof (Supersymmetry included). It is a 4-dimensional model that works below the TeV scale, and that's all (but that's enough for current experiments). As such, I choose not to integrate the Renormalization Group Equations back to the GUT scale as most High Energy Physicists would (this also would not include gravity). Any new, and as yet unknown, fermions or force bosons would affect the end result.
I am trying to derive this number from my ideas on Lie Algebra GUT's and Quantum Statistical Grand Unification. My preliminary results are closer to the El-Okaby number than the Weinberg number, but I need to double-check these results.
Sincerely, Ray Munroe
report post as inappropriate
Dear Ray,
It is nice to talk physics without any personal edges. Have you seen this ludicrous blog called All El Naschie all the time (http://elnaschiewatch.blogspot.com/)? How did Hugh Grant put it in Notting Hill Gate…. It is surreal…. not nice but surreal. I am afraid Weinberg’s number is completely out. There are a few computational errors. They are elementary errors but this is not the important point. The important point is that El Naschie’s results are exact. They are exact because he uses the number system first proposed by Mahrouz Ahmed. Oh, sorry I should say Dr. Mahrouz Ahmed because he just obtained his Ph.D. from the University of Newcastle on Brand theory. As far as I am aware Ahmed is the first one to propose the golden mean as a number system. You can bet your bottom dollar as you say in the USA that Steven Weinberg’s result is wrong. Weinberg got his non-super symmetric inverse coupling almost correct. His result, which he reported in the same volume mentioned in previous comments is 41. The exact result is of course 42.3606799. Please note that this is ten times the Hausdorff dimension of El Naschie’s spacetime. Let me give you an ingeniously simply derivation of this value. It is very simple if you know the theory of dimension of topological matrix spaces due to Menger and Urysohn. Imagine a 4 dimensional cube. Put inside this 4-dimensional cube another smaller 4-dimensional cube. Go on doing that indefinitely. The result is 4 + 4 bar. A 4 bar is a continuous fraction. That means 4 plus 1 divided by four and again 1 divided by four and so on. A pocket calculator will convince you that you have 4 plus the golden mean to the power of 3. That means 4.236067999. This structure is called in topology Hilbert cube. It is part of the general theory of dimensions. The dimension will mean here something mathematical as shown in a recent paper by Nada as well as Ji-Huan He. You can find these papers on the internet. I have seen them but I have seen this derivation much earlier given by El Naschie in a lecture he delivered in Brussels almost nine years ago. Nobel laureate Ilya Prigogine was still alive but he was not there. His right hand man Prof. Georg Nicollis was there. Now you take this value and in addition nine copies of it. So ten copies in all and that is how you get the exact result, 42.3606799. To obtain the value for super symmetry, all you need is to Weyl scale it using the golden mean and you automatically get 26.18033989. That is all folks. Best wishes,
report post as inappropriate
It is nice to talk physics without any personal edges. Have you seen this ludicrous blog called All El Naschie all the time (http://elnaschiewatch.blogspot.com/)? How did Hugh Grant put it in Notting Hill Gate…. It is surreal…. not nice but surreal. I am afraid Weinberg’s number is completely out. There are a few computational errors. They are elementary errors but this is not the important point. The important point is that El Naschie’s results are exact. They are exact because he uses the number system first proposed by Mahrouz Ahmed. Oh, sorry I should say Dr. Mahrouz Ahmed because he just obtained his Ph.D. from the University of Newcastle on Brand theory. As far as I am aware Ahmed is the first one to propose the golden mean as a number system. You can bet your bottom dollar as you say in the USA that Steven Weinberg’s result is wrong. Weinberg got his non-super symmetric inverse coupling almost correct. His result, which he reported in the same volume mentioned in previous comments is 41. The exact result is of course 42.3606799. Please note that this is ten times the Hausdorff dimension of El Naschie’s spacetime. Let me give you an ingeniously simply derivation of this value. It is very simple if you know the theory of dimension of topological matrix spaces due to Menger and Urysohn. Imagine a 4 dimensional cube. Put inside this 4-dimensional cube another smaller 4-dimensional cube. Go on doing that indefinitely. The result is 4 + 4 bar. A 4 bar is a continuous fraction. That means 4 plus 1 divided by four and again 1 divided by four and so on. A pocket calculator will convince you that you have 4 plus the golden mean to the power of 3. That means 4.236067999. This structure is called in topology Hilbert cube. It is part of the general theory of dimensions. The dimension will mean here something mathematical as shown in a recent paper by Nada as well as Ji-Huan He. You can find these papers on the internet. I have seen them but I have seen this derivation much earlier given by El Naschie in a lecture he delivered in Brussels almost nine years ago. Nobel laureate Ilya Prigogine was still alive but he was not there. His right hand man Prof. Georg Nicollis was there. Now you take this value and in addition nine copies of it. So ten copies in all and that is how you get the exact result, 42.3606799. To obtain the value for super symmetry, all you need is to Weyl scale it using the golden mean and you automatically get 26.18033989. That is all folks. Best wishes,
report post as inappropriate
Dr. L. Marek-Crnjac wrote on May. 13, 2008 @ 20:47 GMT
On its own as a single Lie symmetric group E8 cannot do the entire job of unification. On the other hand by summing over all exceptional Lie groups it can be done. This was the program of Prof. Mohamed El Naschie with whom I have had the honour of collaborating on this subject for some time.
Dr. L. Marek-Crnjac appeared as a prof. in Sciam the comment dated Nov. 4, 2008 due to Andrei Khory
, 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.ht
ml
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.
report post as inappropriate
On its own as a single Lie symmetric group E8 cannot do the entire job of unification. On the other hand by summing over all exceptional Lie groups it can be done. This was the program of Prof. Mohamed El Naschie with whom I have had the honour of collaborating on this subject for some time.
Dr. L. Marek-Crnjac appeared as a prof. in Sciam the comment dated Nov. 4, 2008 due to Andrei Khory
, 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.ht
ml
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.
report post as inappropriate
Dear Adrian Hanno,
I have known Dr. Nasr Ahmed for several months, and congratulated him via e-mail a couple of weeks ago on his recent Ph.D. from Newcastle upon Tine.
I was a graduate student at the University of Texas at Austin in the early 80’s when both Nobel Laureates, Steven Weinberg and Ilya Prigogine were Professors there. I have the greatest respect for both men and their respective fields. My specific Ph.D. was from Florida State University in High Energy Physics Phenomenology and, therefore, closer to Weinberg.
El Naschie and I are both mavericks. I have kept an open mind about his works, but have not yet incorporated all of his techniques into mine.
I am still trying to understand the ORIGINS of these special numbers, 0.618, 1.618, 2.618. Please see my discussion with Steve Dufourny at http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/405. If these numbers are encoded into the fabric of reality, then El Naschie is fully justified in using them so much. Otherwise, it looks like we are making up “magic” numbers. We must be careful with our Physics and Mathematics so that we are not completely isolated from Mainstream Physics.
I think another approach to the problem would be good. I am trying to solve this problem using my E12 TOE and Quantum Statistical Grand Unification. Thus far, different models give different results, and I am unsure which is correct.
Keep an open mind!
Sincerely, Ray Munroe
report post as inappropriate
I have known Dr. Nasr Ahmed for several months, and congratulated him via e-mail a couple of weeks ago on his recent Ph.D. from Newcastle upon Tine.
I was a graduate student at the University of Texas at Austin in the early 80’s when both Nobel Laureates, Steven Weinberg and Ilya Prigogine were Professors there. I have the greatest respect for both men and their respective fields. My specific Ph.D. was from Florida State University in High Energy Physics Phenomenology and, therefore, closer to Weinberg.
El Naschie and I are both mavericks. I have kept an open mind about his works, but have not yet incorporated all of his techniques into mine.
I am still trying to understand the ORIGINS of these special numbers, 0.618, 1.618, 2.618. Please see my discussion with Steve Dufourny at http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/405. If these numbers are encoded into the fabric of reality, then El Naschie is fully justified in using them so much. Otherwise, it looks like we are making up “magic” numbers. We must be careful with our Physics and Mathematics so that we are not completely isolated from Mainstream Physics.
I think another approach to the problem would be good. I am trying to solve this problem using my E12 TOE and Quantum Statistical Grand Unification. Thus far, different models give different results, and I am unsure which is correct.
Keep an open mind!
Sincerely, Ray Munroe
report post as inappropriate
From http://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2009/02/06/chaos-continue
s-in-math-journal/
Zoran 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 editor’s 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 Naschie’s 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
report post as inappropriate
s-in-math-journal/
Zoran 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 editor’s 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 Naschie’s 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
report post as inappropriate
As Gerard 't Hooft provided us with the best criteria that nicely fits the
case 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.
report post as inappropriate
case 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.
report post as inappropriate
As a peice of gold, you find the recent CV of El naschie. One can enjoy reading it on www.fikr7.org/WMS_Gallery/cv/naschie.pdf
that is due to The Arab Thought Foundation (www.arabthought.org) on its seventh conference 2008. Where El naschie was on of the speaker, maybe about pseudo science!!!!!!!!!!
The more interesting thind is about the great man's CV, let us go through it for the sake of joy. In his suspicious academic career, the most suspicious one is to be a Professor at DAMTP 1991-2002, Cambridge, U.K. I don't know if the great man was a fool or full prof. there, please see his record with Cambridge where 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
The great man forged the affiliation of Cambridge.
Activities:
1. Appointed by the Egyptian Minister of Higher Ed cation and Scientific Research as the Advisor for Nano-technology and High Energy Physics, Egypt.
2. Chair of the National Nanotechnology Committee, Egypt.
3- Advisor to President of King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia .
So much the worse for Egypt and Saudi Arabia. But remember the man
has been claimed to be the director of King Abdullah Institute for Nanotechnology here in http://agenda.fisica.uniud.it/difa/getFile.py/access?contrib
Id=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.sh
tml
Other writen activities
Founder and Editor in chief of 'The Interdisciplinary Jo rnal of Non-Linear Sciences, Nano & Q ant m Technology' p blished by Elsevier Sciences.
-The great man didn't specify which journal, is it the CS&F that you have already kicked out of it. Or what are the other journals.
- Honorary member in the Editorial Board of The International Journal for E-Infinity and Complexity Theory in High Energy Physics and Engineering. This Journal is exclusively dedicated to Prof. El Naschie’s E-Infinity theory.
Where's that Journal???????????????
report post as inappropriate
that is due to The Arab Thought Foundation (www.arabthought.org) on its seventh conference 2008. Where El naschie was on of the speaker, maybe about pseudo science!!!!!!!!!!
The more interesting thind is about the great man's CV, let us go through it for the sake of joy. In his suspicious academic career, the most suspicious one is to be a Professor at DAMTP 1991-2002, Cambridge, U.K. I don't know if the great man was a fool or full prof. there, please see his record with Cambridge where 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
The great man forged the affiliation of Cambridge.
Activities:
1. Appointed by the Egyptian Minister of Higher Ed cation and Scientific Research as the Advisor for Nano-technology and High Energy Physics, Egypt.
2. Chair of the National Nanotechnology Committee, Egypt.
3- Advisor to President of King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia .
So much the worse for Egypt and Saudi Arabia. But remember the man
has been claimed to be the director of King Abdullah Institute for Nanotechnology here in http://agenda.fisica.uniud.it/difa/getFile.py/access?contrib
Id=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.sh
tml
Other writen activities
Founder and Editor in chief of 'The Interdisciplinary Jo rnal of Non-Linear Sciences, Nano & Q ant m Technology' p blished by Elsevier Sciences.
-The great man didn't specify which journal, is it the CS&F that you have already kicked out of it. Or what are the other journals.
- Honorary member in the Editorial Board of The International Journal for E-Infinity and Complexity Theory in High Energy Physics and Engineering. This Journal is exclusively dedicated to Prof. El Naschie’s E-Infinity theory.
Where's that Journal???????????????
report post as inappropriate
El naschie mentioned in his recent CV http://www.fikr7.org/WMS_Gallery/cv/naschie.pdf
Honorary member in the Editorial Board of The International Journal for E-Infinity and Complexity Theory in High Energy Physics and Engineering. This Journal is exclusively dedicated to Prof. El Naschie’s E-Infinity Theory.
Can the great man tell us where we can find this journal, it is urgent.
I have a generalization of E-Infinity theory, I call it Alphabetic - Infinity theory, in which E-Infinity is a special case. You can imagine A-Infinity, B-,... and so on even you can use Greek letters. Even more one can use continous index to have really uncountable number of theories.
Publications
More than 500 papers in engineering, applied and theoretical physics. See: www.sciencedirect.com
I think the great man repeatedly telling us that he pubplished 900. Why he didn't mention remaining 400 articles.
I guess the great man has puplished One Thousand and One article, to be similar to One Thousand and One Nights. The man has a taste for classic literature.
Major research interest of the great man
Nuclear engineering, nonlinear dynamics, nanotechnology and quantum field theories and spacetime physics
Of course the great man has a sharp critical mind and he is concerned with the topical questios of his time and even beyond space-time.
Prizes:
Honored for contribution to Science, Abdel Hameed Shoman Foundation, Amman, Jordan in November 2007. Shit
report post as inappropriate
Honorary member in the Editorial Board of The International Journal for E-Infinity and Complexity Theory in High Energy Physics and Engineering. This Journal is exclusively dedicated to Prof. El Naschie’s E-Infinity Theory.
Can the great man tell us where we can find this journal, it is urgent.
I have a generalization of E-Infinity theory, I call it Alphabetic - Infinity theory, in which E-Infinity is a special case. You can imagine A-Infinity, B-,... and so on even you can use Greek letters. Even more one can use continous index to have really uncountable number of theories.
Publications
More than 500 papers in engineering, applied and theoretical physics. See: www.sciencedirect.com
I think the great man repeatedly telling us that he pubplished 900. Why he didn't mention remaining 400 articles.
I guess the great man has puplished One Thousand and One article, to be similar to One Thousand and One Nights. The man has a taste for classic literature.
Major research interest of the great man
Nuclear engineering, nonlinear dynamics, nanotechnology and quantum field theories and spacetime physics
Of course the great man has a sharp critical mind and he is concerned with the topical questios of his time and even beyond space-time.
Prizes:
Honored for contribution to Science, Abdel Hameed Shoman Foundation, Amman, Jordan in November 2007. Shit
report post as inappropriate
The great man El naschie in his recent CV
http://www.fikr7.org/WMS_Gallery/cv/naschie.pdf
His suspicious academic career
• Research Scientist, University College 1974, London, U.K.
• Associate Professor, KSU 1980, Saudi Arabia
• Distinguished Professor, New Mexico 1981, USA
• Professor, KACST 1985, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
• Director, KACST 1987, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
• Professor, Cornell 1988, Sibley School of Aeronautics & Astronautics, USA
• Professor, Solvay Institute for Physics & Chemistry 1990-2004, Free University of
Brussels, Belgium
• Professor, DAMTP 1991-2002, Cambridge, U.K.
• Professor, School of Electronic Engineering 2000-2004, University of Surrey, Guildford, U.K.
It is seems that the great man is fond of both false (pseudo) affiliations and
pseudo sciences. The great man is still not able to realize that his claims can be vindicated easily through internet, please, great man wake up, you are a completely dormant.
El naschie claimed to be the director, KACST (King Abdul Aziz city of science and Technology) during 1987, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
But if you look at the website of that KACST and the website of past directors, as usual, no mention for him.
http://www.kacst.edu.sa/aboutkacst/pages/pastpresidents.
aspx
The list is as the following
Prof. Rida M.S. Obaid, KACST President 1977 - 1983
Dr. Saleh Al-Athel, KACST President 1983 - 2007
The great man is a big liar or if he is telling the truth he must sue KACST.
report post as inappropriate
http://www.fikr7.org/WMS_Gallery/cv/naschie.pdf
His suspicious academic career
• Research Scientist, University College 1974, London, U.K.
• Associate Professor, KSU 1980, Saudi Arabia
• Distinguished Professor, New Mexico 1981, USA
• Professor, KACST 1985, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
• Director, KACST 1987, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
• Professor, Cornell 1988, Sibley School of Aeronautics & Astronautics, USA
• Professor, Solvay Institute for Physics & Chemistry 1990-2004, Free University of
Brussels, Belgium
• Professor, DAMTP 1991-2002, Cambridge, U.K.
• Professor, School of Electronic Engineering 2000-2004, University of Surrey, Guildford, U.K.
It is seems that the great man is fond of both false (pseudo) affiliations and
pseudo sciences. The great man is still not able to realize that his claims can be vindicated easily through internet, please, great man wake up, you are a completely dormant.
El naschie claimed to be the director, KACST (King Abdul Aziz city of science and Technology) during 1987, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
But if you look at the website of that KACST and the website of past directors, as usual, no mention for him.
http://www.kacst.edu.sa/aboutkacst/pages/pastpresidents.
aspx
The list is as the following
Prof. Rida M.S. Obaid, KACST President 1977 - 1983
Dr. Saleh Al-Athel, KACST President 1983 - 2007
The great man is a big liar or if he is telling the truth he must sue KACST.
report post as inappropriate
The small man An is now calling himself Sh. Never in my life have I read anything as pathetic as what this lunatic writes. He has nothing left in his life, sitting alone in Sinai than defaming others and making them responsible for his misery. He first hired John Baez and then John Baez hired to totally screwed up creature called Jason to run on his behalf an obscene site, so disgusting that I do not even venture to give its web address. The site is totally devoted to slandering El Naschie. We have a world recession bring destruction to many parts to the developed and under developed world and God knows what else but John Baez and his clique have nothing better to do but to devote their worthless lives to defaming El Naschie. If that is all, then El Naschie must be worth a great deal. Unfortunately for Baez and his entourage of internet hooligans, I know a little bit about these things. The value 4.02 is not an ordinary Hausdorff dimension. It is a spectral dimension. It will take you a few years at least to learn all these subtle differences between the different forms of defining a fractal dimension which can but need not coincide with the Hausdorff dimension and another dozen or so dimensions of the same family. There is nothing bad about being a school teacher if Prof. Crnjac is a school teacher. What is truly bad is to earn your money by slandering people, inventing filthy tales about them and spend your life in destruction or earning prize money by stealing your colleagues work. As for stealing from your own sick mother, this is something which is beyond us. I am sure the person concerned knows what we are talking about here.
report post as inappropriate
report post as inappropriate
Dear Prof. El Naschie, Please forgive us as we do not have the time to spend on removing the comments of Sh. Now if it is any conciliation to anyone, it is short for shit with which he signs his comment of April 4, 2009 08.35 GMT. Whether this is a nickname of Said, John Baez or Jason we do not know. Probably it is the way the gentleman usually introduces himself. Once more our apologies.
Florist
report post as inappropriate
Florist
report post as inappropriate
I didn't claim that El naschie has no Ph.D. , but I just wonder
why 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.
report post as inappropriate
why 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.
report post as inappropriate
I have found an amazing article due Amr El naschie (brother of M. S. Elnaschie) celebrating his brother.s 60th birthday.
The 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.
report post as inappropriate
The 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.
report post as inappropriate
Comments on the article of Amr El naschie
Of 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/
report post as inappropriate
Of 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/
report post as inappropriate
This is just a typical abstract paper for one of the greatest member of E-infinity club namely Ji-Huan He and his company.
Hierarchy 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.
report post as inappropriate
Hierarchy 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.
report post as inappropriate
To the Web Master
Do you consider it correct and fair to take out any positive comments about El Naschie and his work and leaving defamatory stuff against El Naschie and encouraging it? Is that a sign of the chivalry and honor characterizing this site? Mr. E.W. is Mr. An and is identical to Sh. This is the same person who is paid to do the dirty job of defamation. Maybe you would like to have his profile (http://thecaseofsaidelnashaie.blogspot.com/2009/01/case-of-
said-elnashaie.html#comments).
report post as inappropriate
Do you consider it correct and fair to take out any positive comments about El Naschie and his work and leaving defamatory stuff against El Naschie and encouraging it? Is that a sign of the chivalry and honor characterizing this site? Mr. E.W. is Mr. An and is identical to Sh. This is the same person who is paid to do the dirty job of defamation. Maybe you would like to have his profile (http://thecaseofsaidelnashaie.blogspot.com/2009/01/case-of-
said-elnashaie.html#comments).
report post as inappropriate
I have found an amazing article due Amr El naschie (brother of M. S. Elnaschie) celebrating his brother.s 60th birthday.
The 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...
view entire post
The 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...
view entire post
report post as inappropriate
Comments on the article of Amr El naschie
Of 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 ?ord 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
report post as inappropriate
Of 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 ?ord 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
report post as inappropriate
I didn't claim that El naschie has no Ph.D. , but I just wonder
why 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 Reply
report post as inappropriate
why 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 Reply
report post as inappropriate
To the Web Master
Do you consider it correct and fair to take out any positive comments about El Naschie and his work and leaving defamatory stuff against El Naschie and encouraging it? Is that a sign of the chivalry and honor characterizing this site? Mr. E.W. is Mr. An and is identical to Sh. This is the same person who is paid to do the dirty job of defamation. Maybe you would like to have his profile (http://thecaseofsaidelnashaie.blogspot.com/2009/01/case-of-
said-elnashaie.html#comments).
P.S. Sh is now H.S. and this site and its Master as well as the good man Garrett Lisi have been made a mockery of by internet hooligans and vandals, notably Said Salah El Deen Hamad
report post as inappropriate
Do you consider it correct and fair to take out any positive comments about El Naschie and his work and leaving defamatory stuff against El Naschie and encouraging it? Is that a sign of the chivalry and honor characterizing this site? Mr. E.W. is Mr. An and is identical to Sh. This is the same person who is paid to do the dirty job of defamation. Maybe you would like to have his profile (http://thecaseofsaidelnashaie.blogspot.com/2009/01/case-of-
said-elnashaie.html#comments).
P.S. Sh is now H.S. and this site and its Master as well as the good man Garrett Lisi have been made a mockery of by internet hooligans and vandals, notably Said Salah El Deen Hamad
report post as inappropriate
All these comments describing El naschie as a hero for muslem countries in this site or other sites are just lies. Even more these comments are due to El naschie himself as is clear to every one. El naschie is an extremely bad muslem example, if he is really a true good muslem then he should be adhered to the Islamic morality like honesty. But the great man lies in telling about his affiliations and expertise. Abusing his power as an editor in chief publishing hundreds of non sense papers.
All of these are not good deeds according to Islamic mesure and deserve a punishment or at least this guy should be declared to all people for being dishonest and cheating innocent people and warning people to deal with him.
report post as inappropriate
All of these are not good deeds according to Islamic mesure and deserve a punishment or at least this guy should be declared to all people for being dishonest and cheating innocent people and warning people to deal with him.
report post as inappropriate
Other criteria of crackpottishness are exactly fitting El naschie case can be found in
http://www.cognitionandculture.net/index.php?option=com_co
ntent&view=article&id=435:how-i-found-glaring-errors-in-eins
teins-calculations&catid=57:pascals-blog&Itemid=34
1 All crackpottery is foundational. Crackpots do not go for the small problems, for what Kuhn called the puzzle-solving of...
view entire post
http://www.cognitionandculture.net/index.php?option=com_co
ntent&view=article&id=435:how-i-found-glaring-errors-in-eins
teins-calculations&catid=57:pascals-blog&Itemid=34
1 All crackpottery is foundational. Crackpots do not go for the small problems, for what Kuhn called the puzzle-solving of...
view entire post
report post as inappropriate
A 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?
report post as inappropriate
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?
report post as inappropriate