PDA

View Full Version : What is the scientific consensus on El Naschie's theory of fractal spacetime?



Paracelsus
2007-Jun-17, 07:35 PM
I posted a thread on this in the 'General Science' forum which didn't generate much interest. El Naschie (http://www.el-naschie.net/) is the editor of the International Journal of Nonlinear Sciences and Numerical Simulation. He has published several papers in this journal on his E-infinity fractal space theory, in which he predicts that 4-dimensional spacetime becomes fractal at high energies. He also prdicts the existence of 69 fundamental particles, as opposed to the 60 that are predicted by the Standard Model.

Here is an editorial summarizing his work: http://www.ijnsns.com/naschie-he.pdf. It also contains refs to his past papers.

Views of his work appear to be mixed. Some are positive: http://www.esi-topics.com/nhp/2006/september-06-MohamedElNaschie.html.

Some are not so positive: http://archivefreedom.org/freedom/Cyberia.html.

I am not knowledgeable enough to judge his work for myself.

Could anyone give me an opinion on whether it is worth my time to struggle through his papers? ;)

Mild mannered
2007-Jun-18, 01:15 PM
Hi
There was a good discussion of this in a recent New Scientist - all very interesting, see if you can get a copy - there are many different camps but overall the jury was out until further observation and info comes in.

Paracelsus
2007-Jun-18, 02:07 PM
Thanks!

Cougar
2007-Jun-18, 05:34 PM
I am not knowledgeable enough to judge his work for myself.... Could anyone give me an opinion on whether it is worth my time to struggle through his papers? ;)
Well, I'm not knowledgeable enough to judge his work either, but there are several clouds around this guy that lead me to think that there are hundreds if not thousands of other papers that are more worth your time to slog though.


First off, here's a blog comment [from "Not Even Wrong"]:


Just looking at El Naschie’s listing of papers on SPIRES, it looks like he published around 56 papers over the last 4 years. This would be around 14 papers per year, or a paper every 3 or 4 weeks! When was the last time a bigshot, like an Ed Witten or John Ellis, published this many single-authored papers in one year?

On the surface it looks like El Naschie is using the journal “Chaos Solitons Fractals” as if it was his own personal “vanity” journal. In the publishing business the publishers with the lowest reputation seem to be the “vanity” publishers, who will publish just about anything for a fee. (These are usually the publishers of last resort for authors who have been turned down by just about every other publisher).

Then there's that deal about El Naschie using Cambridge as his institutional affiliation, which he was called on an had to retract. I'd like to see his CV. I don't doubt he has a PhD, but it ain't from Cambridge.


Then there's the fact that he is - apparently initially - a structural engineer. Again, I'd like to see his CV and his specific qualifications in physics. My wife is a professor in structural engineering, and it's a very difficult discipline, but I'm certain that the two-slit experiment is not part of the curriculum!


Is El Naschie just pumping out pretty word salads? Nonlinear, deterministic chaos and fractals, fuzzy Kähler-like manifolds, quintessence, etc., etc?

I'm not knowledgeable enough to be able to tell.

Paracelsus
2007-Jun-18, 07:44 PM
Yeah, I saw that blog-entry too, hence the question. The editorial I posted seemed to think El Naschie deserved the Nobel Prize already, and his papers ARE highly cited. Am not sure if they are highly cited by mainstream scientists in the field, however.

That's the problem with using the journal you edit to publish your own work. It opens one up to the accusation of running a forum to air one's own vanity. El Naschie isn't the only guy doing this (if he's doing this), however. There are probably other editors who use their journal as a platform to promote their own careers/ideas instead of as a forum for objectively discussing scientific issues. Others are non-peer reviewed pay-to-play journals.

Then again, there are other small journals out there that are also objective. Paul Coleman's 'Neurobiology of Aging' is pretty good, I think--or at least, it probably is now that he's gotten over his prejudice against studies examining the role of A-beta in AD.

H0sten
2009-Feb-14, 09:04 AM
http://elnaschiewatch.blogspot.com

I have a blog on El Naschie.

H0sten
2009-Feb-14, 09:20 AM
El Naschie Watch (http://elnaschiewatch.blogspot.com)

My blog, in fact.:)

My opinion of the guy and his work is not favorable.:(

Mike M
2010-Oct-11, 07:17 PM
A major breakthrough in understanding wave collapse. This is the least we can say about this new profound discovery. The most astonishing thing about it is why it was not discovered long ago. In a nutshell the essence of the argument is as follows: A quantum particle may be modeled as a point. However it is not any point. It is a Cantor point. That means it is a fractal point taking out of Laurent Nottale’s or Garnet Ord’s fractal spacetime. Consequently it is a point but much more than a point at the same time. Every Cantor point or fractal point is by virtue of self-similarity a point representation of the entire universe, i.e. the fractal universe upon sufficient magnification. This zooming process, as explained by Nottale, has no end. This is all well known stuff from the theory of fractals. Now comes the crucial point. Since this point is nominally a point we take it to be mathematically the zero set and physically to be a quantum particle. Now the boundary of the zero set is the empty set. The empty set has no element what so ever and is given in the classical theory a dimension minus one. Never mind all these numbers. The important thing is just to keep in mind that a Cantor or a fractal point represents a quantum particle and that the boundary of this quantum particle is the empty set. It comes as no surprise that El Naschie and his E-infinity group propose that the empty set is just the mathematical name for the probability wave function of quantum mechanics. Such a wave function is devoid of energy, matter and momentum to the extent that it mystified all physicists and led Einstein as well as Bohm to call it a ghost wave.There is even a theory by both men called the guiding wave theory. The guiding wave is nothing but the empty set. So far so good. Here comes the resolution of the wave collapse problem say the group of E-infinity researchers. Any attempt to locate the quantum particle will include interference with its boundary. Since its boundary is the empty set, then any interference will make the empty set non-empty. Consequently the empty set ceases to exist. On the other hand the empty set is our quantum wave function. It follows as a trivial result that when the empty set vanishes because it becomes non-empty, then the wave function also vanishes. The group of E-infinity did not stop at this disarming explanation of the wave collapse. Using the Menger-Urysohn and the Hausdorff dimension of the zero set and the empty set, they are able to make convincing calculations and derive the topology of the spacetime manifold which allowed such physics involving the empty set wave collapse. You can read about that in proceedings of a conference in Shanghai http://www.isnd2010.com and http://www.msel-naschie.com. With a theory like that we are in a much better position to start unifying quantum mechanics with relativity and produce a real theory of quantum gravity. At least there is more hope that way.

Nereid
2010-Oct-11, 09:21 PM
A major breakthrough in understanding wave collapse. This is the least we can say about this new profound discovery. The most astonishing thing about it is why it was not discovered long ago. In a nutshell the essence of the argument is as follows: A quantum particle may be modeled as a point. However it is not any point. It is a Cantor point. That means it is a fractal point taking out of Laurent Nottale’s or Garnet Ord’s fractal spacetime. Consequently it is a point but much more than a point at the same time. Every Cantor point or fractal point is by virtue of self-similarity a point representation of the entire universe, i.e. the fractal universe upon sufficient magnification. This zooming process, as explained by Nottale, has no end. This is all well known stuff from the theory of fractals. Now comes the crucial point. Since this point is nominally a point we take it to be mathematically the zero set and physically to be a quantum particle. Now the boundary of the zero set is the empty set. The empty set has no element what so ever and is given in the classical theory a dimension minus one. Never mind all these numbers. The important thing is just to keep in mind that a Cantor or a fractal point represents a quantum particle and that the boundary of this quantum particle is the empty set. It comes as no surprise that El Naschie and his E-infinity group propose that the empty set is just the mathematical name for the probability wave function of quantum mechanics. Such a wave function is devoid of energy, matter and momentum to the extent that it mystified all physicists and led Einstein as well as Bohm to call it a ghost wave.There is even a theory by both men called the guiding wave theory. The guiding wave is nothing but the empty set. So far so good. Here comes the resolution of the wave collapse problem say the group of E-infinity researchers. Any attempt to locate the quantum particle will include interference with its boundary. Since its boundary is the empty set, then any interference will make the empty set non-empty. Consequently the empty set ceases to exist. On the other hand the empty set is our quantum wave function. It follows as a trivial result that when the empty set vanishes because it becomes non-empty, then the wave function also vanishes. The group of E-infinity did not stop at this disarming explanation of the wave collapse. Using the Menger-Urysohn and the Hausdorff dimension of the zero set and the empty set, they are able to make convincing calculations and derive the topology of the spacetime manifold which allowed such physics involving the empty set wave collapse. You can read about that in proceedings of a conference in Shanghai http://www.isnd2010.com and http://www.msel-naschie.com. With a theory like that we are in a much better position to start unifying quantum mechanics with relativity and produce a real theory of quantum gravity. At least there is more hope that way.
Welcome to BAUT, Mike M! :)

It would be nice to learn why none of this apparently breakthrough theoretical work has not been published in any peer-reviewed journals, in the last decade.

For example, enter "El Naschie" in the author field of ADS, and you get (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-abs_connect?db_key=AST&db_key=PRE&qform=AST&arxiv_sel=astro-ph&arxiv_sel=cond-mat&arxiv_sel=cs&arxiv_sel=gr-qc&arxiv_sel=hep-ex&arxiv_sel=hep-lat&arxiv_sel=hep-ph&arxiv_sel=hep-th&arxiv_sel=math&arxiv_sel=math-ph&arxiv_sel=nlin&arxiv_sel=nucl-ex&arxiv_sel=nucl-th&arxiv_sel=physics&arxiv_sel=quant-ph&arxiv_sel=q-bio&sim_query=YES&ned_query=YES&adsobj_query=YES&aut_logic=OR&obj_logic=OR&author=El+Naschie&object=&start_mon=&start_year=&end_mon=&end_year=&ttl_logic=OR&title=&txt_logic=OR&text=&nr_to_return=200&start_nr=1&jou_pick=ALL&ref_stems=&data_and=ALL&group_and=ALL&start_entry_day=&start_entry_mon=&start_entry_year=&end_entry_day=&end_entry_mon=&end_entry_year=&min_score=&sort=SCORE&data_type=SHORT&aut_syn=YES&ttl_syn=YES&txt_syn=YES&aut_wt=1.0&obj_wt=1.0&ttl_wt=0.3&txt_wt=3.0&aut_wgt=YES&obj_wgt=YES&ttl_wgt=YES&txt_wgt=YES&ttl_sco=YES&txt_sco=YES&version=1) nothing published in any journal since 1999, and only two arXiv preprints since. Do you know why?

H0sten
2010-Oct-12, 02:18 AM
Maybe they are not in ADS because they are not astrophysics papers. Here they are in Google Scholar (http://scholar.google.com/scholar?as_q=&num=10&btnG=Search+Scholar&as_epq=&as_oq=&as_eq=&as_occt=any&as_sauthors=El+Naschie&as_publication=&as_ylo=&as_yhi=&as_sdt=1.&as_sdtp=on&as_sdts=48&hl=en).

H0sten
2010-Oct-12, 05:40 AM
You can read about El Naschie's blacklisting from the arXiv (http://elnaschiewatch.blogspot.com/2010/08/el-naschies-blacklisting-from-arxiv.html).

Nereid
2010-Oct-12, 07:53 PM
Maybe they are not in ADS because they are not astrophysics papers. Here they are in Google Scholar (http://scholar.google.com/scholar?as_q=&num=10&btnG=Search+Scholar&as_epq=&as_oq=&as_eq=&as_occt=any&as_sauthors=El+Naschie&as_publication=&as_ylo=&as_yhi=&as_sdt=1.&as_sdtp=on&as_sdts=48&hl=en).
ADS also works wrt papers on physics.

Using that I got not much more; specifically lots more CSF journal cites (but none more recent than 1999), one International Journal of Modern Physics E (2004), and two conference proceedings (2008; conference proceedings are not peer-reviewed papers).

The Google Scholar cites are overwhelmingly CSF journal cites or pre-2001; can you point to any papers - published in peer-reviewed journals - which are not published in CSF (and that were published after 2000)?

Very few of the papers - and preprints - which I checked were cited by anyone (not counting El Naschie himself); the one with the highest cite count (7) is Why we live in 3 Dimensions (2000) (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2000hep.th....4152C).

It seems remarkably strange that if the insights are so powerful (in terms of the explanatory power; full internal consistency assumed) no one much seems to have seen it. And it's surely not for want of looking; there are plenty of very, very bright and knowledgeable people out there, constantly on the look-out for exactly this sort of thing (example: the response to Lisi's ideas).

Nereid
2010-Oct-12, 08:00 PM
You can read about El Naschie's blacklisting from the arXiv (http://elnaschiewatch.blogspot.com/2010/08/el-naschies-blacklisting-from-arxiv.html).
Wow! I hadn't realised that El Naschie was (and still is?) chief Editor of the CSF journal!

I'm not sure I fully understand the details of the blacklisting, but claiming an academic affiliation you do not have is, in my book, pure fraud. The sanctions for such fraud should be severe. Now if El Naschie's ideas do have legs, then someone else will pick them up and get them published (with full attribution); after all, finding something revolutionary which also has legs is what a great many scientists would give the right arms for!

H0sten
2010-Oct-14, 01:06 AM
Wow! I hadn't realised that El Naschie was (and still is?) chief Editor of the CSF journal!

I'm not sure I fully understand the details of the blacklisting, but claiming an academic affiliation you do not have is, in my book, pure fraud. The sanctions for such fraud should be severe. Now if El Naschie's ideas do have legs, then someone else will pick them up and get them published (with full attribution); after all, finding something revolutionary which also has legs is what a great many scientists would give the right arms for!

Nereid, I think if you read Introduction to Mohamed El Naschie (http://elnaschiewatch.blogspot.com/2010/05/concise-introduction-to-mohamed-el.html), most of your questions will be answered. :whistle: