Skip to the Main Content

Note:These pages make extensive use of the latest XHTML and CSS Standards. They ought to look great in any standards-compliant modern browser. Unfortunately, they will probably look horrible in older browsers, like Netscape 4.x and IE 4.x. Moreover, many posts use MathML, which is, currently only supported in Mozilla. My best suggestion (and you will thank me when surfing an ever-increasing number of sites on the web which have been crafted to use the new standards) is to upgrade to the latest version of your browser. If that's not possible, consider moving to the Standards-compliant and open-source Mozilla browser.

November 3, 2008

The Kind of Email I Don’t Need

Posted by John Baez

In these days of easy communication, you don’t need to be very well-known to get a lot of email from crackpots. But I think my reputation as scourge of crackpots, destroyer of cranks actually causes them to seek me out.

Regardless of the reason, maybe you’d like to see the kind of scientific email I get.

Or maybe not…

Here’s one I got today:

In Lak’ech - I am another yourself!

I bid you peace in a world at war with itself; but know that the Armageddon to be experienced is mental rather then physical. But mental confusions can manifest in physical chaos, so it is prudent to be prepared and to seek harmony within your tripartite being of the conscious outer ego, its parental subconscious inner ego and its supremal superconscious source of the divine ego residing as your kernel-nuclear cosmic identity within all of you both individually and collectively.

A new science is about to be discovered and the bridges between the physical universe and its metaphysical parent are in the process of being built.

Your LHC experiences difficulties, because the 7 TeV energy level defines the cosmic identity, linking the quantum realms of the micro and the macro as a foundational bridge between the material worlds and its immaterial precursor. The timeline of ITS discovery synchronises with the completion of the Mayan-nexus point of 5 baktuns or so 25,627 tropical years and a timeline, which defines even longer cyclicities spanning the sojourns of the human race in the protoverse.

Your ideas and models of space and time are rendered CONSCIOUS at the 14 TeV energy level and so your scientists will discover the ‘Induction of Life’ to operate at the physical parameters defined at that energy in terms of the matter waves of de Broglie.

You are all the chosen peoples encoded in the scrolls of antiquity and you all are heirs to a new world awaiting to be born in gestation. When the scrolls of antiquity were composed by the messengers of old and for the fifth baktun (3114 BC to 2012 AD), then the ‘chosen people’ were localised as a tribal people you know as the Jews and the Hebrews.

It goes on, but that’s enough.

Here’s another equally wacky one. I got it a couple weeks ago:

The Real Question to Life Universe and Everything - First Practical Application of E8-Symmetry in Financial Markets

Dear John,

Thought you might find the link below interesting given your work/teachings on Lie Groups.

The Real Question to Life Universe and Everything - First Practical Application of E8 (Risk/Reward - Symmetry in Financial Markets)

Author and his partner have collaborated on this research for 10 years, Author is a BS, MBA global transformation expert in Corporate America. Partner is Bsc, MBA Global Wealth Specialist on Wall Street this is both an expose and an analysis.

Perfect Portfolio, Solution to Riemann Hypothesis, Grand Unification Theory

Disclaimer - I am aware of the likelihood of ridicule, shock and persecution but I do this anyway for the truth will set us free and be of help to all mankind and nature

TWO LINE SUMMARY:

GRAND UNIFICATION THEORY WORKS BUT THE FINEST MATHEMATICIANS AND PHYSICISTS HAVE BEEN LOOKING IN WRONG PLACE, ITS THE THEORY OF BALANCE BETWEEN INDIVIDUAL AND INSTITUTIONS WEAK FORCES AND STRONG FORCES, IN OTHER WORDS E8 IS ABOUT HUMANS.

Corporate Strategy Maps are identical to E8 subgroups.

This is an attempt to balance expose of Institutions/people betraying trust and an analysis of what is the practical implication of E8. In other words this article is a challenge since it straddles the ordinary investor and worlds finest mathematicians, physicists, I have provided the guidance to help them prove the Riemann hypothesis by simply using capital markets as their domain set, gaming as a lens and using principles of E8 its fairly simple once you see it :)

Symmetry generally conveys two primary meanings. The first is an imprecise sense of harmonious or aesthetically-pleasing proportionality and balance; such that it reflects beauty or perfection. The second meaning is a precise and well-defined concept of balance or “patterned self-similarity” that can be demonstrated or proved according to the rules of a formal system: by geometry, through physics or otherwise.

This article will show symmetry in Financial Markets and its underlying meaning.

Again, it goes on but that should be enough to get the flavor.

I hope these are jokes rather than the works of seriously deluded minds.

Posted at November 3, 2008 6:37 PM UTC

TrackBack URL for this Entry:   http://golem.ph.utexas.edu/cgi-bin/MT-3.0/dxy-tb.fcgi/1841

69 Comments & 4 Trackbacks

Re: The Kind of Email I Don’t Need

Well at least if the second guy is right, we’ll know soon enough as he becomes the wealthiest man alive. Mostly off topic: really enjoyed your talk at UofI recently, it was a scream.

Posted by: rick on November 3, 2008 7:38 PM | Permalink | Reply to this

Re: The Kind of Email I Don’t Need

Glad you liked my talk!

Posted by: John Baez on November 3, 2008 10:40 PM | Permalink | Reply to this

trivector momentum?

OK I have a nutty idea, so maybe this is a good place to post it?? I do have a higher degree in Maths from a highly reputable Uni, but very long ago.

Once I tried to figure out how to do weather/climate simulations better by looking at momentum crossing grid boundaries. There is obviously ordinary vector momentum (wind), and ordinary bivector (angular) momentum (hurricanes/etc). Well maybe gas expansion/pressure can be regarded as scalar momentum. Does this make sense? I’ve nearly got a clifford algebra entry in each grid position. All I need is some trivector momentum. But I could never figure out what that would be. It would be a pseudoscalar (just one number) and it would presumably permute stuff around the 3 axes, keep going, but not have any net rotation…

Posted by: Robert Smart on November 3, 2008 10:26 PM | Permalink | Reply to this

Re: trivector momentum?

Yes, this is a good place to post nutty ideas — especially if you want me to make fun of them or just delete them. For example, saying you have a degree will make me cite item 10 on the crackpot list.

On the other hand, if you have a vaguely sensible idea like the one you just mentioned, a thread devoted to insane email I get from crackpots is not such a good place to post it.

Posted by: John Baez on November 3, 2008 10:37 PM | Permalink | Reply to this

Re: trivector momentum?

Wait, so this isn’t the right place to describe my wonderful buzzword unification theory which this comment box is too narrow to contain?

Posted by: Blake Stacey on November 8, 2008 12:37 AM | Permalink | Reply to this

Re: trivector momentum?

Are you basing your theories on the work of Tzvi Gal-Chen - the master meteorologist at the Royal Academy of Meteorology, an organization that is in secret battling across parallel worlds the group known as the 49 Quantum fathers?

See the book Atmospheric disturbances / Rivka Galchen. (Note that author names a character after herself.)

Posted by: RodMcGuire on November 6, 2008 3:25 PM | Permalink | Reply to this

Re: The Kind of Email I Don’t Need

A version of that financial article appears on knol.google.com. I remember that being promoted a little while back as a high quality moderated alternative to wikipedia written by experts in their fields.

Posted by: Dan Piponi on November 3, 2008 10:27 PM | Permalink | Reply to this

Re: The Kind of Email I Don’t Need

I was wondering just today whatever happened to knols.

Posted by: Walt on November 12, 2008 3:32 AM | Permalink | Reply to this

Re: The Kind of Email I Don’t Need

Hey!

In the “some related entries” remark, there are two links to my friend Professor Elvis Zap. He too has a degree. Some of his videos are zany, but often they are instructive. And the line in the QG-TQFT blues about getting the co-product wrong proved to be very prescient. One only hopes that your robots generated the related links ;-)

I received some variants on the emails that you mention, but they were immediately deleted. Hardy taught us to at least skim such missives, but they do seem to be coming more frequently, don’t they?

Posted by: Scott Carter on November 4, 2008 3:45 AM | Permalink | Reply to this

Re: The Kind of Email I Don’t Need

Elvis Zap is listed as a ‘related entry’ not because he’s a crank, but because I classified this entry and that one as ‘Just For Fun’. My robots did the rest.

If we extrapolate current trends, by 2030 Medicare will be broke and everyone will be a crackpot.

Posted by: John Baez on November 4, 2008 6:39 AM | Permalink | Reply to this

Re: The Kind of Email I Don’t Need

by 2030 (…) everyone will be a crackpot

A most calamitous prediction, I should say.

Anyway, I sympathize with you. I also receive similar emails, sometimes.

It would be a very nice contribution if someone created an “anti-crackpot email filter” (based, perhaps, on your crackpot index?)…

Best,
Christine

Posted by: Christine Dantas on November 4, 2008 9:52 AM | Permalink | Reply to this

Re: The Kind of Email I Don’t Need

But how to avoid missing the gem? I take it that Hardy’s advice, mentioned by Scott, to “at least skim such missives” was given after his experience with Ramanujan.

Presumably the crackpot filter wouldn’t have removed Ramanujan’s letter to Hardy, so maybe it’s a safe device. How often do people receive non-crackpot messages which just seem to be wrong, and how quickly are they skimmed?

Posted by: David Corfield on November 4, 2008 10:21 AM | Permalink | Reply to this

Re: The Kind of Email I Don’t Need

It would be terrible to “miss the gem”…

The anti-spam filters that I use do not delete the emails, but send them to a separate folder, which I rapidly check once a week or so (or when I want to). It ends up as just a case of better organization, but of course it doesn’t work 100%.

In any case, most of my emails, even non-crackpot related, are of no use. Just a very few is of interest…

Posted by: Christine Dantas on November 4, 2008 10:54 AM | Permalink | Reply to this

Re: The Kind of Email I Don’t Need

David Corfield wrote:

But how to avoid missing the gem?

These days anyone with a sensible idea in math or physics can put it on the arXiv.

I recently got an email pointing me to this article. Quirky but perfectly correct as far as I can tell.

Posted by: John Baez on November 4, 2008 5:11 PM | Permalink | Reply to this

Re: The Kind of Email I Don’t Need

In order to get an endorsement I would have to send emails to people like you to convince them that I had a sensible idea. That brings us back to square one.

Is there an example of someone without some kind of affiliation to a research institution getting an endorsement? I have never seen it. Of course if I had a valid proof of the RH I would have no problem, but anything less obviously important is going to be difficult to get endorsers interested in.

Also, I think many of us would not want to tie ourselves to an individual endorser in this way, even if endorsers were willing to risk the association themselves. There should be reasonable criteria in place to enable people to submit. E.g. having a suitable doctorate or having published previously in relevant peer reviewed journals should be enough. The arXiv can always reject inappropriate submissions and blacklist people if required.

The archive system was introduced just a few years after I left academia and the ability to submit encouraged me to get back into independent research. Since they changed the rules I have stopped because there is no point if I cannot get my work into the right forum. There are more doctorates than ever leaving maths and physics for outside carears. Arguably the best are leaving for better paid jobs, and partly because it is so difficult to do the research that most interests them within the current funding system.

I thought perhaps the FQXi would do something. E.g. they could create a register of suitably qualified scientists who left the system and encourage them to do foundational research by giving the required endorsements. I dont think people necessarily need funding except where they want to attend conferences. So far even the FQXi seem reluctant to do anything like that. Perhaps when it is seen that the best part of a whole generation of researchers has been lost something will change.

Posted by: PhilG on November 5, 2008 8:20 AM | Permalink | Reply to this

Re: The Kind of Email I Don’t Need

Is there an example of someone without some kind of affiliation to a research institution getting an endorsement?

Yes, I’ve endorsed someone meeting that description.

Posted by: Tom Leinster on November 5, 2008 4:11 PM | Permalink | Reply to this

Re: The Kind of Email I Don’t Need

Speaking of which, would anyone endorse me?

I would like to put up some of my papers

http://phorgyphynance.wordpress.com/my-papers/

but they are mostly finance-related and I don’t know anyone in finance on the arxiv. Does the sponsor need to be an expert in the area of the author? (I think I remember reading that somewhere, which is why I haven’t asked earlier)

Posted by: Eric on November 5, 2008 4:28 PM | Permalink | Reply to this

Re: The Kind of Email I Don’t Need

Eric wrote:

Does the sponsor need to be an expert in the area of the author?

Yeah: read the rules. So, I probably can’t endorse you for papers on mathematical finance. You have sensible ideas on discrete differential geometry, but in the field of finance you could be a raving crackpot for all I know!

(Just kidding — I don’t actually believe it.)

Posted by: John Baez on November 9, 2008 2:33 AM | Permalink | Reply to this

Re: The Kind of Email I Don’t Need

Good, I am pleased that the system is working for at least some people.

Posted by: PhilG on November 5, 2008 8:56 PM | Permalink | Reply to this

Re: The Kind of Email I Don’t Need

Note to moderator: Remove links if not appropriate.

“Is there an example of someone without some kind of affiliation to a research institution getting an endorsement? I have never seen it.”

Yes. I got an endorsement from several people for a paper on the masses of the neutrino masses. The paper was removed by the arXiv moderators. After my formulas were referenced in the peer reviewed literature at EPJ-C and other places such as I forget where, I sent an email to arXiv asking that they allow my paper back on to “hep-ph”. In response, they put it up on “physics” where they put the other cranks. I told them to take it down because it should be replaced with a newer paper. If they’d stuck it on “hep-ph” I’d have left it there.

So yeah, a guy who is not related to any university can get a paper put on arXiv. And I have little doubt that I could have gotten that paper published somewhere, if I had gone through the painful process of editing, arguing with referees, adapting to some journal’s style standards (without knowing if they would ever accept it anyway). However, since I’m not in academia I do not need tenure or a list of publications. Doing physics is fun, writing papers is boring. And getting them published is quite painful. So at that time there was little motivation for me to go through the process. Besides, when I keep my papers on my websites, I can look up the IP information on the people who read them.

But yeah, if you have something useful to say, you can get it in the physics literature. Even if you wear a hard hat and drive a forklift. It may not be easy, but it’s not that easy for physicists either.

Posted by: Carl Brannen on November 7, 2008 6:38 PM | Permalink | Reply to this

Re: The Kind of Email I Don’t Need

Carl I’m glad you got some interest in your work, but if the arXiv threw out your perfectly sensible paper even after you had it endorsed then things are worse than I thought.

I agree that we still have some journals where there is some hope of publishing but they are becoming increasingly less relevant compared to the arXiv. I am not the greatest fan of the journal publishers and their methods but I would be happier if they were being replaced by a system where you still got published on the merit of your work rather than a system where it is a case of having the right contacts.

Posted by: PhilG on November 7, 2008 8:28 PM | Permalink | Reply to this

Re: The Kind of Email I Don’t Need

John said “These days anyone with a sensible idea in math or physics can put it on the arXiv.”

Most of us outside of institutionalised research have no chance to submit to the arXiv since they introduced the endorsement system. Of course you may not regard my ideas as sensible but I can still publish in Journals (sometimes).

Ironically I can’t readily access the journals online. I appreciate John’s efforts to change that by the way.

Posted by: PhilG on November 4, 2008 5:50 PM | Permalink | Reply to this

Re: The Kind of Email I Don’t Need

Someone with sensible ideas should be able to get the necessary endorsement to put their stuff on the arXiv: you just need to get someone already in the club to endorse you.

This might be tiresome hoop to jump through, but without some system like this the arXiv would quickly fill up with junk, just like every other physics forum that doesn’t impose some sort of filtering.

Posted by: John Baez on November 4, 2008 9:45 PM | Permalink | Reply to this
Read the post Knollity
Weblog: Science After Sunclipse
Excerpt: Google Knol provides an interesting forum for the incoherent.
Tracked: November 4, 2008 6:24 PM

Re: The Kind of Email I Don’t Need

Dear all, my own experience is unlike John’s – namely crackpots avoid me, statistically speaking. Namely many producers of bogus “work” actually have high standing in academic world and I collected the data on two or three bigger groups of them and they try to push me away, so my crackpot repulsion index is higher than attraction index.

It is sad that some academic institutions and, in larger extent, some publishers back those people up. For example, Elsevier has a journal called Chaos, Solitons and Fractals, included unfortunately in the A+ category in quality by the Australian Academy of Sciences, in a powerful commercial citation factory called Current Contents and with high “impact factor” over 3. It is not that in Chaos etc. there are no good papers, some are normal regular hard science. But, a significant and very visible percentage of papers there belong to one and the same group of people including the very editor, certain El Naschie, a person with many bogus affiliations, and writing in recent years papers with practically no arguments but high predictions based on numerology, coincidences and fancy pictures combining Lie algebras, chaos theory and so on, at the layman level.

In January 2008 he published 6 papers in his own journal, Current Contents indexes them, Elsevier gets 3000 euro for the subscriptions for such a journal (compare with around 250-300$ for Annals of Math.), it is bundled with some other journals if you take electronic version and then institutions lke Max Planck have to take it even if they do not want it.

In some of his January 2008 articles the main editor is quoting a Frankfurt Univ. affiliation, which had some truth in distant past but he is not in capacity to do it now. I was told that there is an investigation about using this affiliation now. I contacted some of the associate editors, most of whom did not respond to my question how such a behaviour is allowed. Two of them told me that they will quit from the editorial board, and one that his name was put on the editorial page without his consent!

I know that many people are aware of the stuff. When Urs visited me last month I mentioned this during the lunch and he was well aware of the nonsense papers often published there. I contacted one influential Nobel prize winner who knows El Nashchie and told me that he can’t or does not want to do much about it, and this is not a big thing and so on. And I was informed of huge influence of that guy in some middle east countries, what is not an argument which should be cited by a person of Nobel prize standing, and I feel it insulting for the decency of discussion. I do not care if the person is powerful; I care if he is right or wrong.

El Naschie is put in some other editorial boards and put in his editorial board editors of some reciprocal journals. I collected huge number of data on these things, but the publishers, my employer, colleagues etc. consider my effort not worthy of their support though they agree I am right. In countries like mine our promotions and so on depend if the journal is included in Current Contents list and so on, and the K-theory journal is not, although people like Alain Connes publish there, while Chaos Solitions and Fractals is, although people like El Naschie publish there. This is not justice and the scientific community will have to start staying nice observer of the fact that publishers do not care who is running their joirnals as long as the citation is high. Even if the citations are cross-citations of community of related journals of actually indefensible quality by international standards.

The friendly journal to Chaos etc is the International Journal of Nonlinear Sciences and Numerical Simulation (see http://www.ijnsns.com/conf.html) where El Naschie is the associate editor and the main editor is Ji-Hun He, the guy whose one paper was the most cited paper in the last two years in math according to Scopus, another service sold by commercial publishers, and that is how I learned about this crackpot – I expected Tao, Perelman or Connes to be among top cited and not some low quality author (his papers are barely a bit better than what El Naschie is writing). To see what they think of themselves read http://www.ijnsns.com/conf.html:

“Our Chinese Scientists on Nonlinear Dynamics are in infinite love and admiration to both the man and his science.”

“Treading the path of El Naschie, we gather together to celebrate the century’s greatest scientist after Newton and Einstein, and share his greatest achievement.”

“the experimental verification of his theory will certainly lead to a Nobel prize, which we all expect.”

This journal has an impact factor about 4.38, which is double the best math journals like Annals or JAMS. And our fate in science is judged by the IF of journals where we publish. And I ask the readers of the n-category café to look at the quality of journals in IJNSNS for example.

Here are free sample papers:

http://www.ijnsns.com/2004-05-03/9-pi-new.pdf

http://www.ijnsns.com/2004-05-03/8-wan-electrospinning.pdf

A friend of mine said that in would not pass in a high school journal for math. And Thompson indexes such things and puts them in SCIE, calculates their impact factors and so on (IF is not calculated for many valuable journals in nonwestern countries but is for such a journal!). So crackpots are not really distinguished by Thompson from regular journals! What do you think of this??

Posted by: Zoran Skoda on November 6, 2008 10:43 PM | Permalink | Reply to this

Re: The Kind of Email I Don’t Need

I needed to say Thomson Scientific, not ThomPson. They have even featured interviews with El Naschie in a section called http://esi-topics.com

“providing citation analyses and commentary for selected scientific research areas that have experienced notable recent advances or are of special current interest.”

So Thomson Scientific does not distinguish highly cited bogus work from normal hard science. In the very interview they give
El Naschie bombs them with fancy words like K3, string theory, fuzzy space etc. What is behind his work it is easy to judge on the basis of his papers. But it is not easy to do this for agencies like Thomson, who care just about collecting citation numbers and does not care WHO cites, and about excluding incompetent people’s judgements. And the funding agencies appreciate what Thomson databases say when they evaluate scientists instead of taking serious reviewers who will actually LOOK in the papers what is written inside. My librarian tells me, “why do you (scientists) need Thomson to tell you which paper is good? Can’t you tell this by reading it?”

Posted by: zskoda on November 6, 2008 11:35 PM | Permalink | Reply to this

Re: The Kind of Email I Don’t Need

You are right - I once ran across a paper in Chaos, Solitons, and Fractals via a web search, and I was amazed at what utter garbage it was (with no redeeming value whatsoever). Probably not all papers in the journal are so bad, but a quick look at El Naschie’s titles and abstracts was not inspiring…

This is a really depressing side of science. Occasionally people manage to carve out a respectable-seeming position on the basis of crank work. It might be only skin deep, with meaningless adjunct appointments and editorship of a lousy journal, but it still looks far more impressive than most cranks and it’s galling to see poor work misrepresented as good. I can’t be certain this is the case of El Naschie, but at first glance it seems to be.

Posted by: Anonymous on November 7, 2008 2:25 AM | Permalink | Reply to this

Re: The Kind of Email I Don’t Need

El Naschie seems an unusual case. From what I’ve seen, he’s been trying to leverage wealth and political power into scientific credibility. It’s sad, because of the desperation, and also a nuisance, because of the poor quality of the work. He even has many “students” who regularly comment about how great he is. It would be interesting if a science journalist or someone else would get to the real facts about this – but I suspect doing so could put the journalist’s life in danger, so most everyone just wants to stay clear of it.

Posted by: Another onymous on November 7, 2008 6:24 AM | Permalink | Reply to this

Re: The Kind of Email I Don’t Need

Funny, his Wikipedia entry is glowing. Maybe someone needs to go update it.

Posted by: John Armstrong on November 7, 2008 12:40 PM | Permalink | Reply to this

Re: The Kind of Email I Don’t Need

Hm, this is interesting (that his wikipedia article is glowing). Namely
I know that his wikipedia article was deleted by the administrators of the wikipedia, because it had unsubstantiated claims on his research without independent support etc. There is a record of erased wikipedia entry:
el naschie article for deletion, wikipedia deletion page

Look at the history to see some of the discussion why it was deleted.
This is what his friend or alias said in the discussion:”prof. el naschie…has some papers published in other journals. if you want to delete the article delete it immediately without putting this deletion marks which is considered as an insult to Prof. el naschie. insulting famous and respected people like that is punishable by law and Prof. el naschie is going to take a legal actions if you don’t stop that. he wants you to delete the article because he is well known without wikipedia, he doesn’t need wikipedia to be known.”
(imagine!).

Now indeed, as you said, somebody started a NEW e.naschie wikipedia entry few weeks ago – Sep 19, 2008 is written in the history page as a first entry date of the
new clone.

At Peter Woit’s blog there are some other
reactions:

Peter Woit blog – on Chaos, solitons and fractals

(scroll until you find the remarks on
Chaos, solitons and fractals and El Naschie)

Compare also
commentary in Spanish

Posted by: Zoran Skoda on November 7, 2008 5:09 PM | Permalink | Reply to this

Re: The Kind of Email I Don’t Need

I am curious, how many people have ever encountered essentially meaningless (occasionally rising to the level of incorrect) papers published in otherwise reputable mathematics journals. I have some specific examples to share with anyone who is interested in contacting me privately. This sort of “bundling”, whether intentional or not, is surely less heinous than what appears to have happened at Chaos, Solitons and Fractals. Still, it reflects a distortion of the “certified” record of mathematical output, leading to diversion of scare resources. When authors are unable or unwilling to adhere to minimal standards of rigor, when editors and referees do not consider it their responsibility to enforce such standards (notwithstanding scrutiny when it suits them), and when reviewers (assuming correctness and interest, by inductive hypothesis) simply regurgitate the author’s own introductory paragraphs, and then append a collegial pat on the back, who then? Perhaps the responsibility falls to the vigilante with the audacity to ACTUALLY READ the paper?


Posted by: Adam Epstein on December 4, 2008 8:19 PM | Permalink | Reply to this

Re: The Kind of Email I Don’t Need

Zoran Skoda : The friendly journal to Chaos etc is the International Journal of Nonlinear Sciences and Numerical Simulation (see http://www.ijnsns.com/conf.html) where El Naschie is the associate editor and the main editor is Ji-Hun He, the guy whose one paper was the most cited paper in the last two years in math according to Scopus, another service sold by commercial publishers, and that is how I learned about this crackpot.
——————————————

One friend of mine told me that some papers have been published with great mistakes but many citations of J.H. He’s articles. For example, in the article,


D.D. Ganji, et al. Variational iteration method and homotopy perturbation method for nonlinear evalution equations, Computers and mathematics with Applications, 54 (2007) 1018-1027
( doi:10.1016/j.camwa.2006.12.070 )


The approximations (3.17) and (3.18) of the second example (3.14) and (3.15) are divergent at ALL x and t except t = 0 (which gives the initial condition). Even so, this article is accepted for publication, but with 17 citations of J.H. He’s paper !


J. H. He in Dong-Hua University, China, has four papers with more than 200 citations. And the Impact Factor of his journal IJNSNS ( see http://www.ijnsns.com/conf.html ) is more than 5.0 right now. I doubt if his work is indeed so important and this journal is so good.

Posted by: Any on December 16, 2008 7:39 AM | Permalink | Reply to this

Re: The Kind of Email I Don’t Need

Even a cursory glance at Chaos, Solitons, and Fractals shows that it is a complete fraud of a journal, manufacturing completely cracked pottery. Elsevier is a business, and not a very honorable one, and this is perhaps the best evidence I’ve yet seen of that.

Posted by: anonymous on November 7, 2008 7:32 AM | Permalink | Reply to this

Re: The Kind of Email I Don’t Need

Better even than a journal on Homeopathy?

Posted by: Blake Stacey on November 8, 2008 12:32 AM | Permalink | Reply to this

Re: The Kind of Email I Don’t Need

I don’t see what’s so terrible about Chaos, Fractals and Solitons except that it’s an Elsevier journal and its title sounds bit like Currently Fashionable Fads.

Posted by: John Baez on November 8, 2008 6:06 PM | Permalink | Reply to this

Re: The Kind of Email I Don’t Need

And I can’t find this supposedly absurd Wikipedia article about El Naschie.

Posted by: Eugenia Cheng on November 9, 2008 2:13 AM | Permalink | Reply to this

Re: The Kind of Email I Don’t Need

It has been deleted two days ago.

Posted by: Mathieu Dupont on November 9, 2008 9:30 AM | Permalink | Reply to this

Re: The Kind of Email I Don’t Need

The discussion leading to the deletion of this article has itself been hidden from view for privacy reasons. It can be found if you look harder, but it sheds more heat than light.

One comment from this discussion:

I don’t know how wiki administrators lestin to any jealous or malicious person. you should investigate by yourself about what faragali said. all of what he said is completely wring and just some lies. prof. el naschie main contributions are in the field of chaos and fractals so it is more convenient for his papers to be published in Chaos, solitons and fractals. he also has some papers published in other journals. if you want to delete the article delete it immediately without putting this deletion marks which is considered as an insult to Prof. el naschie. insulting famous and respected people like that is punishable by law and Prof. el naschie is going to take a legal actions if you don’t stop that. he wants you to delete the article because he is well known without wikipedia, he doesn’t need wikipedia to be known. i created the article for him and unfortunately cannot delete it. can you please delete el naschie article which i created? thank you. —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Nasr2000|Nasr2000]] ([[User talk:Nasr2000|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Nasr2000|contribs]]) 16:51, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

One naturally wonders who Nasr2000 is and why he claims El Naschie “is going to take legal actions” if the article is not deleted.

Posted by: John Baez on November 9, 2008 5:08 PM | Permalink | Reply to this

Re: The Kind of Email I Don’t Need

Note to moderators: comment may of course be deleted, as were my previous ones.

I also had an endorser for an arxiv paper, a highly respected physicist, but the endorsement mysteriously evaporated at some point after my name was mentioned. Oh well. As Carl says, the arxiv is redundant anyway.

Posted by: Kea on November 8, 2008 12:25 AM | Permalink | Reply to this

Re: The Kind of Email I Don’t Need

I’m of the opinion that cranks are a good thing. What other math/physics fans do we have? What we need is a way to use them to generate money… perhaps by marketing math merchandise to them?

Posted by: Daniel Moskovich on November 8, 2008 2:10 PM | Permalink | Reply to this

Re: The Kind of Email I Don’t Need

I’ve been offered several thousand dollars to write a report on Randall Mill’s hydrino theory and its commercial applications.

The problem is, academics value the respect of their peers more than medium-sized amounts of money. If someone offered me a million dollars to endorse a nutty theory, I probably would. As long as I could tell people how much money I made, they’d understand and we could all laugh about it.

But ten thousand dollars? No way!

Posted by: John Baez on November 8, 2008 6:04 PM | Permalink | Reply to this

Re: The Kind of Email I Don’t Need

The worst nightmare of a virtuoso pianist is damaging his/her hands, for it would make it impossible to play the great piano pieces.

I think that the worst nightmare of a scientist *should* be loosing the capacity of accepting when he/she is in error, specially when there is an undeniable proof of it. Such a crippling condition can turn a scientist into a crackpot.

A typical crackpot is not able to accept even a minor criticism of his/her work. Theiy fail to understand what science is all about. Crackpots are those who are living the scientists worst nightmare and don’t even realize it.

Posted by: Christine Dantas on November 8, 2008 6:51 PM | Permalink | Reply to this

Re: The Kind of Email I Don’t Need

” he/she is in error, specially when there is an undeniable proof of it.”

Sometimes, the concept of undeniable error is quite subjective, mainly when it comes to consider what is physically consistent in a theory in the lack of experimental evidence, even though the mathematical background is correct. Just see the whole drama of the “characters” of “string wars”.It gets really boring and passionate from both “groups”, both calling the other side “CRACKPOT!!!” instead of having a reasonable discussions.

Historically, this kind of attitude is not new, it happened ad nauseaum, and where one point of view can be politcaly or by force of tradition enforced. The most famous one is, I think, about the wave/particle nature of light, where the wave character, by Huygens, was overshadowed by a century by Newton’s corpuscular character, and later, it was alternatively overshadowed by the Wave theory.

It is also noteworthy that it is likely that mathematical aspects of different theories can be important to the master theory.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave-particle_duality

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corpuscular_theory_of_light

Posted by: Daniel de França MTd2 on November 8, 2008 8:15 PM | Permalink | Reply to this

Re: The Kind of Email I Don’t Need

“he/she is in error, specially when there is an undeniable proof of it.”

Sometimes, the concept of undeniable error is quite subjective, mainly when it comes to consider what is physically consistent in a theory in the lack of experimental evidence

Evidently, I was referring to “theories” that have various experimental evidences against them, yet the crackpots who devise them appear to dismiss those evidences, insisting that it is the rest of the world who is wrong.

What matters in this whole thing is the correct, persistent and honest use of the scientific method. Lack of experimental evidence is a reminder to the theorist that he/she may be drifting away into a dangerous territory, as much interesting as it may seem.

Posted by: Christine Dantas on November 8, 2008 8:56 PM | Permalink | Reply to this
Read the post The Case of M. S. El Naschie
Weblog: The n-Category Café
Excerpt: M.S. El Naschie has many papers in the Elsevier journal Chaos, Solitons and Fractal, of which he is the editor in chief. What are these papers like?
Tracked: November 9, 2008 5:05 AM

Re: The Kind of Email I Don’t Need

John wrote:

I don’t see what’s so terrible about Chaos, Fractals and Solitons except that it’s an Elsevier journal and its title sounds bit like Currently Fashionable Fads.

I completely take back this remark! I should have investigated more before commenting. For more, see this.

Posted by: John Baez on November 9, 2008 5:14 AM | Permalink | Reply to this

Re: The Kind of Email I Don’t Need

I should have investigated more before commenting. Oh, really. Who would have guessed.

Posted by: Kea on November 9, 2008 5:56 AM | Permalink | Reply to this

Re: The Kind of Email I Don’t Need

What I personally find more distressing is that almost none of Naschie’s papers got a bad rap on MathSciNet or ZentrallBlatt.

I think we have all received our fair share of atrocious nonsense, either to review or as editors of journals. So it’s no big surprise that some crud slides below the radar and makes its way into print.

But MathSciNet and ZentralBlatt are run using the services of the mathematical community, so one would expect at least some of those reviews to point out that these papers are utter nonsense.

Posted by: jvk on November 11, 2008 7:06 PM | Permalink | Reply to this

Re: The Kind of Email I Don’t Need

This issue is indeed a problem and not too easy to handle at Zentralblatt or MathScinet. One may notice that most of El Naschie’s publications are simply left out, which means “just not mathematically relevant”. (For instance, no El Naschie article in Chaos Solitons Fractals of the last nine months made it neither into Zentralblatt or MathScinet, and there were dozens of them).

Unfortunately, this rather hard implicit criticism ist not visible if you are not comparing the journal content with the databases (and a small percentage of this crap comes trough and makes up a considerable publication list!).

On the other hand, it is very hard to find reviewers for this type of publications. In general, potential reviewers react like “I don’t want to deal with this crap” or “I’d like to be taken more seriously as a reviewer.”

As a preliminary solution, Zentralblatt collects now voluntary emails with the option of later comment publication (there is a “comment on this item” button). But since often questions of scientific ethics are involved (unfortunately, some mathematicians try to destroy their colleague’s reputation unsubstantiated, even when acting as reviewers or referees) , there will always be the need of quite intense moderation.

Posted by: rank zero on November 12, 2008 11:05 PM | Permalink | Reply to this
Read the post Chaos bei Elsevier
Weblog: Mathlog
Excerpt: Pseudowissenschaft in "Chaos, Solitons and Fractals"....
Tracked: November 12, 2008 6:10 AM

Re: The Kind of Email I Don’t Need

A frequent commenter at NEW has linked the case of El Naschie to the case of Carlos Castro and the arxiv. As it happens, I know nothing about El Naschie, and have no intention of reading about his case, but Castro is a different story entirely. Me thinks that even more research might be required here.

Posted by: Kea on November 13, 2008 3:17 AM | Permalink | Reply to this

Re: The case of El naschie

To prof. Jhon Baez

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.

Posted by: Any one on November 22, 2008 5:36 PM | Permalink | Reply to this
Read the post Periódico é acusado de pseudociência e favorecimento
Weblog: Laudas Críticas
Excerpt: O físico e engenheiro egípcio Mohamed Saladin El Naschie está no centro de uma crise que ameaça a credibilidade dos sistemas de avaliação de publicações e de carreiras científicas. Na semana passada, a matéria “Self-publishing edit...
Tracked: December 1, 2008 7:55 PM

Re: The Kind of Email I Don’t Need

The entire relationship of academia and the five page journal article is profoundly wrong. You are pointing out what appears to be a single egregious problem when it is the entire orientation of academia towards publishing worthless papers that is the problem.

These days, it is almost impossible to relay truely useful information in a journal article. Links to raw data and processing algorithms are not provided. There is little room for anything more than modest self promotion without providing enough information for an honest review that is supposed to be the nature of science.

A non-tenured professor with a fantastic web site that relays real information should be a better candidate than one that has published a dozen worthless (but reviewed) five page papers. But that is not how the machine of academia currently works.

Posted by: laughingskeptic on January 5, 2009 8:03 PM | Permalink | Reply to this

Re: The Kind of Email I Don’t Need

This is oversimplifying the problem. One extreme is relying on quantized data which matched the entry into “reputable” journals; other extreme is to have a mere impression of the wide and diverse “useful” output of a scientist. The system should indeed foster all useful output, but should also have a discriminating HIERARCHY of what the cornerstones, gems, important discoveries are as opposed to minor improvements, long collections of explanations and alike. Both mass and quality are important, and the quality and choice should not be uncontrollably lost in the mass of unreliable, unstable, unstructured or less centrally relevant material. The reference to earlier work should also be controlled for various reasons (stimulation of discoveries which are really new; building on well-developed theories; easier referencing and centralized/localized accessability).

The purpose of refereed journals is
to verify originality, importance, condensed nature of results in sufficiently finished form to be generally useful. Realization of such principles is easily compromised. In Soviet Union, referees used to be paid for their work, so the standard of the refereeing process was high. Unpaid referees with lack of time and burden of deadlines which are getting ever shorter,
with specialization of disciplines and variety of notation, pressure of famous people and editors, personal inclinations in taste, background, attitudes and superficial readings are just some of the effects.

I agree that online version of articles involving experimental data and numerical simulation data should provide files with raw data instead of prepared and simplified graphs, especially if the experiments were publicly funded. I recall extracting approximate data from secondary graphs while doing my first research projects in physics; this could be overcome today, and authors who do provide files with data along with their articles should be praised for that, and it should become a new standard. But, publishers somehow develop technological tools of different nature for different purposes from such which we scientist see. And cases like chaossf show that publishers do not respond to the input and critics of the public, unless it is overwhelming, and even then with a long delay.

It is important that there is a constant effort that scientific corpus stays stratified by the criterions of being reputable, relevant, original, well-motivated and so on. What combination is better than the current is open for discussion; I think that mere negation of publication practice and going for the samizdat (self-publishing) web pages ONLY is not a solution. Better is to get the best gems into the control of professional societies (rather than profitable publishers), rethinking the spectrum of specialized journals, redoing the databases of publication and citation records, relying on human judgement more than mere numbers and so on.

Posted by: Zoran Skoda on January 8, 2009 4:37 PM | Permalink | Reply to this

Re: The Kind of Email I Don’t Need

How I found glaring errors in Einstein’s calculations by Pascal Boyer.
  1. All crackpottery is foundational.
  2. Most physics crackpots are engineers.
  3. All crackpots are male.
  4. Crackpots ignore other crackpots.
  5. The crackpot theory is invariably more intuitive than the standard one.
  6. The crackpot alternative is, almost universally, less mathematically challenging than the standard account.
  7. The crackpot theory is based on textbooks.
Posted by: RodM on April 10, 2009 8:06 PM | Permalink | Reply to this

Axiomatic Psychoceramics; Re: The Kind of Email I Don’t Need

Interesting analysis of a psychosociological phenomenon of great interest to me, and foundationally relevant to how Mathematics and Science are actually done. Why, for instance, the gender difference? Is that only in countries where Men dominate Science? Does it depend on the country’s configuration of Science, Engineering, and Technology, where (broadly speaking) the 3 main distinct paradigms are those of USA, Japan, and Germany?

Posted by: Jonathan Vos Post on April 10, 2009 10:36 PM | Permalink | Reply to this

Re: Axiomatic Psychoceramics; Re: The Kind of Email I Don’t Need

A very interesting documentary on a high functioning psychopath (IQ > 180, physics phd, banker,..) investigates the neurological sources and social consequences of such a syndrome.

Posted by: anon on April 25, 2009 6:51 AM | Permalink | Reply to this

Re: The Kind of Email I Don’t Need

I have discovered a truly wonderful proof of John Baez’s theory about crackpots, which the margins of this comment are unfortunately too small to contain…

Posted by: mclaren on April 11, 2009 8:56 AM | Permalink | Reply to this

Re: The Kind of Email I Don’t Need

Chaos, Solitons and Fractals still seems to publish el Naschie’s E-Infinity crackpot stuff. The reason is, that there are many of his followers in the editorial Board of Chaos Solitons and Fractals. Elsevier only fired El-Naschie. But, for example, editor J. J. He still publishes the EL-Naschie stuff:

Chaos, Solitons and Fractals
Volume 39, Issue 4, 28 February 2009, Pages 1667-1670

“A generalized poincare-invariant action with possible application in strings and E-infinity theory”

Ji-Huan He

Modern Textile Institute, Donghua University, 1882 Yanan Xilu Road, Shanghai 200051, China

It reads at the end:

“In forthcoming papers, we will study the properties of the generalized action and find their potential applications in string theory and E-infinity theory.


Hence, even more of EL-Naschie’s E_infinity stuff can be expected.


It seems that nature must write another article.

This shows a very dark light on Elsevier. Apparently, they did nothing. By firing only El Naschie, Elsevier has made the simplest thing that they could do. They did not even evaluate the scientific content of El Naschie’s articles. They did not withdraw this crackpot stuff. And they did not evaluate the articles or persons who frequently cite El Naschie’s articles. Then, they would immediately have found that there are other EL Naschie fans in the Editorial board. Apparently, Elsevier is fine with them publishing their crackpot nonsense.

Posted by: Benni on April 18, 2009 3:46 PM | Permalink | Reply to this

Re: The Kind of Email I Don’t Need

I received no answer to the email I have sent to the Elsevier’s spokesperson about the issue a month ago. By starting publishing massively the backlog of 940 articles accepted during the El Naschie’s era, Elsevier sticks to the ignorance of scientific quality. Before they claimed they did not know of the problem, now they do (they shown it by several months of stalling the publicationm process for about 3 months).

J-H. He is editor of csf-friendly Journal of nonlinear sciences, which published a photo gallery of El Naschie, number of papers of El Naschie and followers and himself (J-H He) as well as famous ridiculous sentence that EN is the greatest scientist since Newton and Einstein.

In March 2009 issue (that is after Elsevier learned of full scale of the problem) there is J-H He’s nonsense article

* J-H He,Lan Hu, Number of elementary particles using exceptional Lie symmetry groups hierarchy, csf 39 (2009) 2119-2124

containing sort of repetition of El Naschie’s numerology about 9 missing particles. Not only nonsense but also, it seems to me, an outrageous plagiarism. The paper publishes previous “calculations” of El Naschie on the E-8 exceptional Lie group and numerology derivation of a number of elementary particles. El Naschie has clearly a case to sue his friend J-H He and Elsevier for publishing a clear case of plagiarism of his earlier “work”. :))

The paper has 55 references: Horawa-Witten 1, Witten 1, Kaku 2 and Nakahara’s book == that is 5; the other 50 references were published either in chaossf or in J-H He’s “journal” jinss (except two separate publications of J-H He in hiw own proceedings/books published by China Education and Culture Publisher 2005 and 2006); out of them there are
30 references by El Naschie, 11 by J-H He,
3 by their follower Marek-Crnjac who made a career writing historical articles about EL Naschie, 2 papers by their coeditor in chaossf G Iovane. No wonder that chaossf and jinss have hi impact factor; shame on Thomson ISI database to count the gang business of self-citation among the joke group of quasiscientists.

J-H He thanks in acknowledgements the “Program for New Century Excellent Talents at University”. What a waste of money and lack of self-respect for those who distribute such a grant!

Posted by: Zoran Skoda on April 19, 2009 4:18 PM | Permalink | Reply to this

Re: The Kind of Email I Don’t Need

Zoran Skoda wrote:
“J-H. He is editor of csf-friendly Journal of nonlinear sciences”


Not only that. J. H. He is also Editor of Chaos Solitons and Fractals.
http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaleditorialboard.cws_home/967/editorialboard

The problem here is, that even if the backlog of articles accepted by El-Naschie got published completely, no one can guarantee that the journal puts the publication of that numerology stuff to an end.

No one can prohibit J. J. He to continue to accept, and even write his own articles about El Naschie’s “theories” in Chaos Solitons and Fractals. The only solution would be for Elsevier to fire J. J. He asap from the editorial board of Chaos Solitons and Fractals. Otherwise, Naschie’s numerological twaddle will almost surely continue to appear in that journal.

Posted by: Benni on April 21, 2009 11:27 PM | Permalink | Reply to this

Re: The Kind of Email I Don’t Need

In the recent Volume 41, Issue 3 (15 August 2009) of the journal chaos, solitons and fractals, there are new articles of El Naschie:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/09600779

BPS states, dualities and determining the mass of elementary particles
Pages 1263-1265
M.S. El Naschie

A simple direct connection between superstrings and E8 unification
Pages 1329-1330
M.S. El Naschie

E-eight exceptional Lie groups, Fibonacci lattices and the standard model
Pages 1340-1343
M.S. El Naschie


Apparently, Elsevier has no shame to publish that stuff…

Posted by: Benni on June 12, 2009 6:44 AM | Permalink | Reply to this

Re: The Kind of Email I Don’t Need

I’m an English major and a librarian who barely managed to pass biology for blondes, so anything beyond “perpetual motion=silly” and “cats in boxes aren’t really dead” goes way over my head. But I do love reading about crackpots, and I’m glad I came across your blog (got here via Pascal’s place ).

Posted by: stubby on April 24, 2009 10:03 PM | Permalink | Reply to this

Re: The Kind of Email I Don’t Need

I’m an English major and a librarian who barely managed to pass biology for blondes, so anything beyond “perpetual motion=silly” and “cats in boxes aren’t really dead” goes way over my head. But I do love reading about crackpots, and I’m glad I came across your blog (got here via Pascal’s place ).

Posted by: stubby on April 24, 2009 10:05 PM | Permalink | Reply to this

Re: The Kind of Email I Don’t Need

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 and 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.

More stuff about El naschie can be found in www.elnaschiewatch.blogspot.com

Posted by: Any one on May 4, 2009 12:23 PM | Permalink | Reply to this

Re: The Kind of Email I Don’t Need

its Hausdorff dimension is estimated to be about 4.2325

The dimension of an object embedded within spacetime is greater than the dimension of spacetime? Wool is remarkable stuff indeed!

Posted by: Toby Bartels on May 4, 2009 6:25 PM | Permalink | Reply to this

Re: The Kind of Email I Don’t Need

When I was an undergrad, we pulled a hair clog out of a bathroom drain whose Hausdorff dimension was at least 4.22.

Posted by: Blake Stacey on May 5, 2009 6:28 AM | Permalink | Reply to this

Re: The Kind of Email I Don’t Need

‘The Thing cannot be described—there is no language for such abysms of shrieking and immemorial lunacy, such eldritch contradictions of all matter, force, and cosmic order […] abnormal, non-Euclidean, and loathsomely redolent of spheres and dimensions apart from ours.’ —H.P. Lovecraft, The Call of Cthulhu

Posted by: Toby Bartels on May 5, 2009 4:53 PM | Permalink | Reply to this

Re: The Kind of Email I Don’t Need

Here is an email I got today:

Subject: The Quantum Geometry of Forms is discovered

To Whom Who Is Not Indifferent to the Fate of Life Permanency on the Planet.

Sensitive contact with the reality that is the current scientific approach based on Intellect is only the initial stage of cognition. At this initial stage a rational scientist operates with conjectures, assumptions, guesses and hypotheses. At this initial stage a rational scientist is completely unable to understand the world surrounding him. A transition to the superior Reasonable stage of cognition is required, which is evidenced by the global economic crisis on the planet. Dogmatism and exaltation of the current science as well as finding base in the Intellect will lead the world to mad consequences. Only the Reason is able to cognize the world. In order to find Reason, a rational scientist needs only to get rid of his pride and exorbitant desires to acquire everything whatsoever, of arrogance and indefatigable strive to change everything whatsoever and also to manipulate everything. All this only causes damage to him and various temporary manifestations surrounding him.

A scientist acquiring the ability to understand the world that is the Reason will start to realize that the whole world seen and not seen thought and not thought of by us is these temporary manifestations or other of a really existing Reasonable world of limited forms. We who have considered ourselves to be gods are only temporary manifestations of these immortal reasonable forms beyond us. Our temporary human appearance will undergo millions and millions of transformations that there won’t be a limit to them. Hence, we are not Reasonable. Only limited forms are reasonable. The whole world science has never discovered the world of limited forms for itself. What has been ascribed by the science to these temporary manifestations or others, the form - that is a profound fallacy. It is necessary to understand that Nature is a multitude of laws connecting this form or other into unity. The science does not know these laws of unity of forms and what the science believes to be the laws is a description of these temporary manifestations or other whic h have nothing in common with the laws of limited forms. That’s why the destruction factors occur: this is the result the rational science gets from destruction of the unity of limited forms, that is, creation of the condition of misbalance on the planet, which, in their multitude, will lead our planet to global destruction after which Life Permanency will cease to exist. It will be the fault of Rational scientists who considered themselves great geniuses of Rational science. The world science needs finally to understand that Existence of everything depends on the balance and unity of forms. Hence, all our unreasonable scientific activity causes harm to us and to all temporary manifestations on the planet, which do not participate in our parasitic barbarism. Our barbarism consists in that we, as a temporary manifestation, are not the true owners of the planet. The owners of the planet are the Reasonable limited forms being much higher in their development than us, mortal and temporary. In respect to us, they are immortal. It is possible

1) Quantum number theory of forms.

2) Quantum set theory of forms.

3) Quantum geometry of forms.

All this will become the foundation of the Reasonable Science.

The Reasonable Science will understand that the Great Gift is the Permanency of everlasting Present, that is, the life on the planet is granted gratis. It is this that provides the possibility of a subtle full-value, absolutely internally free existence, in this Reasonable world of limited forms, always referring to the Formless world, that is, to the initial source of all forms. Our world of everlasting Present is in the status of permanency - invariability of infinite return, it Transforms without changing, hence, it is never truly exhausted and it does not have to regenerate itself, it does not have to refill itself and there is no place for death in it.

That’s all I can tell you.

Alexander Shikunov

Posted by: John Baez on July 1, 2009 9:20 AM | Permalink | Reply to this

Re: The Kind of Email I Don’t Need

John, perhaps I should envy you some because I only get potentially valid and potentially quite interesting emails such as this one from this morning:


Hi, Charlie,
Do you have any thoughts about this?
B’Shalom,
David

Nature Physics 5, 385 - 386 (2009)
doi:10.1038/nphys1298

Full Text - Quantum gravityProgress at a price | PDF (126 KB) - Quantum gravityProgress at a price

Subject Category: Particle physics

Matt Visser

Abstract

The publication of a potentially testable quantum field theory that can accommodate gravity is causing excitement — but it comes at the expense of Lorentz invariance.

Posted by: Charlie Stromeyer on July 1, 2009 2:21 PM | Permalink | Reply to this

Re: The Kind of Email I Don’t Need

Here is my reply to David’s question above:


There is an interesting preprint on the arxiv by T.P. Sotiriou et al. called “Quantum Gravity Without Lorentz Invariance” about a modification of Horava’s model:

http://arxiv.org/abs/0905.2798

However, this brief experimental paper below by Dolev and Elitzur which was also published in an edited book establishes the non-sequential behavior of the wavefunction in QM. The overall result of this paper *is* Lorentz-invariant, but still with Bell-like correlations and, as the authors conclude, this result appears to transcend ordinary concepts of probability theory, causality, space and time:

http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0102109

(I have previously suggested that this non-sequential behavior of the wavefunction might have something to do with the speed-up of quantum computation over classical computation.)

Posted by: Charlie Stromeyer on July 2, 2009 1:20 AM | Permalink | Reply to this

Post a New Comment