تكريم الدكتور النشائى فى جامعة الاسكندرية يوم 24-04-2013

تكريم الدكتور محمد النشائى فى جامعة الاسكندرية كلية العلوم بعد المحاضرة التى القاها هناك بتاريخ 24-04-2013

 Prof. Elnaschie with Postgraduate Students at the faculty of Sciences, University of Alexandria Egypt 24/04/2013

الاجزاء الاوله من المحاضرة التى سوف يلقيها الدكتور النشائى فى جامعة الاسكندرية يوم الاربعاء القادم

أ.د. محمد النشائى فى قناة السعودية للأخبار

الدكتور محمد صلاح الدين النشائى فى قناة السعودية للأخبار يتحدث عن برنامج ايران النووى واخطار الزلازل والتلوث الأشعاعى فى الشرق الأوسط.
Prof. M.S Elnaschie in Saudi news channel on Iran nuclear program

الدكتور محمد النشائى على قناة العربية الحدث بتاريخ 15-04-2013

الدكتور محمد صلاح الدين النشائى على قناة أزهرى بتاريخ 31-03-2013

الدكتور محمد النشائى على قناة القاهرة

Revising Einstein’s E = mc^2: A theoretical resolution of the mystery of the missing hypothetical dark energy of the cosmos

لمشاهدة المحاضرة بالكامل الرجاء الضغط هنا

محاضرة الدكتور محمد النشائى فى جامعة القاهرة قسم الفلك بعنوان (حل لغز الطاقة الداكنة)

الدكتور محمد النشائى فى برنامج المشربية القناة الثانية

أحتفال كلية العلوم جامعة القاهرة بعيد الخريجين مارس 2013

جامعة شنغهاى تكرم النشائى عن نظرية الجديدة | بوابة الجمعة

يطير عالم النانو تكنولجي المصري الدكتور محمد صلاح الدين النشائي إلى الصين يوم 30 أكتوبر الجاري، حيث تكرمه جامعة شنغهاي على اكتشافه العلمي الجديد حول الطاقة الداكنة، أو الطاقة السوداء أو "الكامنة للكون"، وذلك من خلال نظريته التي أسماها بـ"نسبية الكم"، حيث وحد فيها بين نظرية النسبية الخاصة لأينشتاين ونظرية الكم لنيوتن.

كانت جامعة الإسكندرية قد كرمت د. النشائي على مسيرته العلمية واكتشافه الجديد، كما أوفد الرئيس محمد مرسي مستشاره العلمي لحضور الحفل وتسليم درع التكريم للعالم الكبير، مما اعتبره النشائي، مفاجأة سارة تنم عن تقدير الرئيس للعلم والعلماء.

وأكد النشائي في بيان له، أن مصر الآن تحتاج للعمل وليس للجدل، وبالعمل وحده مع التعليم نستطيع اجتياز الصعوبات الاقتصادية ورفع معدل الإنتاج، كما أعلن النشائي رفضه التام لمدينة زويل العلمية، وقال: إن مصر ليست في حاجة لها الآن، خصوصا في ظل الظروف الاقتصادية الحالية.

وأشار إلى أن مصر بها جامعات حكومية عريقة تحتاج معاملها إلى تطوير فقط ووقتها ستكون أفضل من مدينة زويل ومن الجامعات الخاصة، وطالب الحكومة بوقف هذا المشروع الذي وصفه بأنه "يبيع الوهم للمصريين" والاستفادة من الأموال التي تم تجميعها لتطوير الجامعات الحكومية التي تحتاج بالفعل إلى تطوير

جامعة شنغهاى تكرم النشائى عن نظرية الجديدة | بوابة الجمعة

حوار مع الدكتور محمد النشائى فى جريدة الرحمة بتاريخ 22-03-2013

الدكتور محمد صلاح الدين النشائى فى برنامج مصر الاهم حلقة 03-03-2013

الدكتور محمد النشائى فى قناة الشباب يوم 26 فبراير 2013

E(Dark)

In the Arab League / Cairo 13/03/2013 Honoring Professor Mohamed Elnaschie for his complete work in Science and Engineering

التعليم أمة فى خطر (محمد الشافعى)

The quantum cat map Reminiscing B. Chirikov and J. Ford (Dedicated to Giulio Casati)

25^th January, 2013.

The quantum cat map

Reminiscing B. Chirikov and J. Ford

(Dedicated to Giulio Casati)

                                                                                                                                                   

A short sentence haunted me since yesterday “memories behind the memories....”.  My memory failed me because I cannot remember where I heard or read this sentence.  It sounds like something from a surrealist play, maybe it was from James Joyce Ulysses but it could equally be something from Samuel Beckett, Eugene Ionesco or even Marcel Proust searching for the time lost.  I suspect, in fact it must be that all this restlessness is because of what I learned from my good friend Professor Giulio Casati about the passing away of our elderly friend and teacher, the great Russian academician and quantum chaos pioneer Boris Chirikov.  Of course Boris died a while ago but I was not aware of it so I am experiencing this loss as if it just happened.  Jean Paul says memories are a paradise from which man cannot be evicted.  I suspect that it could be the opposite as well.  However on this occasion my memories wandered to a truly beautiful story which Giulio recounted to me from a time when the three friends J. Ford, Boris Chirikov and Giulio were almost continuously working together.  Joseph Ford was extremely interested, if not obsessed, at the time by revising quantum mechanics and find its Achilles heel.  The context of his attempts was the new and vibrant field of quantum chaos which was pioneered by Gutzwiller, Chirikov, Ford, Casati and Michael Berry.  Many criticized Ford that he wanted to discredit quantum mechanics, one of the two main pillars of modern theoretical physics using a simple and almost trivial toy model such as the cat map, originally invented by the famous Russian mathematician V. Arnold.  The three friends or three musketeers if you want always had ongoing discussions and Ford must have felt that his close two friends are not happy with his passion against orthodox quantum mechanics particularly when it was based on what they perceived as whimsical reasoning.  Such persuit would inevitably draw unwarranted criticism and opposition which would cause a distraction and slow the pace of progress of their main work which was to build and complete the new field they were working on, namely quantum chaos.   Ford must have felt that strongly because one day Giulio received a letter from Ford in which he spoke his mind about this and that particularly his doubt that quantum mechanics was complete.  One single sentence however convinced Giulio and I must say also convinced me as a universal justification valid for all people like Ford.  Of course I do not remember the exact wording of the sentence and I do not want to inconvenience my good friend Giulio by requesting him to send me a copy of this years old letter.  At the end of the letter Ford wrote

“I was born to fly and even though I may not reach a destination,

at least I was able to see very far....”.

I thought then and still think now that the eloquency of this sentence does not stem mainly from a literary gift of Ford nor of his mastery of the language of Shakespeare, Milton, Keats, Yates and Shaw but it comes primarily across as superb because it comes from a heart located on the right side and joined to a superior brain and upright, courageous personality.  I did not know Joseph Ford personally and never met him but this is what comes across through this sentence.

At the time when I listened to this story in the beautiful terrace of Giulio’s home located on the magnificent Lake Como, I never thought that I would one day be thinking deeply on Ford’s quantum fascination let alone that I could resolve the problem, at least for myself and my own satisfaction.

Today I feel, to be honest I am convinced, that Ford was wrong but also right at the very same time regarding quantum mechanics.  Of course the cat map was a simple almost trivial toy model.  However this is not its drawback.  The true drawback is that it is not sufficiently simple nor sufficiently trivial.  When tackling fundamental problems searching for the very deep roots, then one will be struck by how simple and trivial the deep roots are.  The cat map has two main ingredients hiding in it.  First the Eigenvalues of the cat map are the golden mean and its derivatives.  Second its dynamic is chaotic with Cantorian set structure.  There are extremely simple random triadic Cantor sets due to the American mathematicians Mauldin and Williams which possess a Hausdorff dimension equal to the golden mean.  The next step is that one should ask himself what is the most amazing and slightly disturbing thing about quantum mechanics?  This is no doubt the same thing which worried Schrödinger and Einstein more than anything else, namely quantum entanglement or what Einstein called spooky action at distance.  However this was in the past.  In the meantime and following the work of Bell and Aharenov the young Lucien Hardy gave an amazing exact solution for quantum entanglement of two particles using orthodox quantum mechanics, a la Dirac.  He found that the probability of quantum entanglement in this case is equal to the golden mean to the power of 5.  This is almost 9.017%.  This result was experimentally confirmed with a very high degree of accuracy in many national laboratories and I showed that Hardy’s result is generic.  Thus quantum entanglement is real and quantum mechanics is without any doubt correct and complete. It only lacks intuitive visualization.  The correct question to ask is how could we see quantum mechanics geometrically?  I worked on this problem and realized almost immediately that the issue is related to the so called measure zero of all Cantor sets.  Let us consider a random Cantor set of the Mauldin, William type.  In constructing the set we removed everything except of uncountably infinitely many random Cantor end points.  The sum of the length of all these points is of course zero.  In a sense the interval which we use to construct this Cantor set does not exist in the naive physical sense yet, and maybe amazingly so, this physically nonexistent point set has a respectable finite Hausdorff dimension comparable with the initial dimension of a line.  The initial dimension of the line of which we designed the Cantor set was unity.  The dimension of the classically nonexistent point set is on the other hand, equal to the golden mean, namely 0.618033989... .  The dimension could be regarded in a sense as the spirit of a body which long departed from the here to the hereafter.  In fact one could say that the dimension and equally the Cantor point set are the halo of a line or a unit interval which is no longer there.  The important question to ask now is what is the distance between the different Cantor set points?  This is of course something varying between one third of the original unit length and zero in the limit of infinite iteration.  On the other hand suppose our original continuous line was representing a one dimensional spacetime geometry, then our entire spacetime would have in this case no length at all although it has a dimension.  The distance between all points of this Cantorian geometry of a Cantorian spacetime would be zero.  Classically of course this makes no sense.  Points separated by zero distance are just another way of saying that these points are not separated at all.  In this sense we found something marvellous indeed.  We have infinitely many points which have a dimension equal to a positive finite value, namely 0.618033989... and never the less we can see the same set as a single point albeit a Cantorian point.  Imagine life in such a space.  Although you have uncountably infinitely many points in this world there is no meaning what so ever for the concept of spatial separation.  This is very strange classically speaking but this is the essence of quantum entanglement which in turn is the essence of quantum mechanics.  Neither Einstein nor of course Schrödinger knew anything about Cantor sets.  Einstein’s way of looking at things was to follow his teacher Herman Minkowsky’s geometrical thinking.  Einstein could not envisage any geometry supporting such phenomena as quantum entanglement and that is why he rejected quantum mechanics.  My guess is that had Einstein known anything about Cantor sets or at least presented with the theory of noncommutative geometry he probably would have changed his mind and accepted quantum mechanics. 

From the above we must conclude that the golden mean’s theoretical and experimental results of Hardy’s quantum entanglement is a proof that the preceding mental picture of a random Cantor set geometry for quantum spacetime is correct. 

Joseph Ford was born to fly indeed and although he did not reach a definite destination he saw an important aspect of reality because he was able to see very far.

The story could have ended at least for me at this point but it did not.  Dark energy which in a sense is a halo of ordinary energy wanted a continuation for Joseph Ford’s surge into space.  The WMAP cosmological measurement as well as the analyses of certain supernova events revealed with very high accuracy that only 4.5% of all matter and energy presumed to be contained in the universe are there.  This result means that either Einstein’s relativity is rather inadequate when applied to the entire cosmos or alternatively that 95.5% of energy and matter in the universe is in a mysterious form completely different from anything we have seen or experienced.    I looked very carefully at this problem which is considered one of today’s main challenges in cosmology and physics.  It turns out that the problem is connected yet again to quantum entanglement and that Einstein’s famous formula E = mc² should be extended to a quantum relativity formula E =  mc² ≈ mc²/22.   That means Einstein’s formula must be multiplied with half of Hardy’s quantum entanglement or what is approximately equivalent to be divided by 22.   The result in this case gives with astonishing accuracy the correct measurement of WMAP and similar tests which use the entire universe as a laboratory.  The 2011 Nobel Prize in Physics went to these measurements.

Although I made these calculations myself, I am still in a state of disbelief that the laws of nature could be so simple and so beautiful.  Eddington, Dirac, Ford and many similarly inclined scientists seem to have had the right intuition all along.

(Dedicated to my friend Giulio Casati in memory of Joseph Ford and Boris Chirikov.)

Mohamed S. El Naschie

25^th January, 2013.

جريدة الصباح 14-01-2013

Laureates regret Indian physicist's Nobel loss : South, News - India Today

Laureates regret Indian physicist's Nobel loss : South, News - India Today

Hyderabad-basedphysicist Dr B.G. Sidharth has received support from some of the world renowned scientists after he was overlooked for this year's Nobel Prize in physics.

The award was given to Saul Perlmutter and Adam Reiss of the US and Brian Schmidt from Australia "for the discovery of the accelerating expansion of the Universe through observations of distant supernovae".

But a year before Perlmutter and Reiss came up with their observations on "dark energy" in theInternational Journal of Astrophysics, Sidharth had in 1998 presented his paper on the expansion of the universe.

The director general of BM Birla Science Centre, Hyderabad, had first proposed the "dark energy" model at the 7th Marcel Grossman Conference in Jerusalem, Israel, from June 22-27, 1997 and a year later at another international conference on quantum physics in Singapore. In 1998, his research paper titled The Universe of Fluctuations was accepted for publication in theInternational Journal of Modern Physics.

But all this was ignored when the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences announced this year's award winners in physics. There was not even a mention of Sidharth or his work. This has caused a lot of heartburn among the scientists who have now come out in Sidharth's support.

"It is of course clear that your equation predicts an exponential (inflation-type) expansion of the current universe, hence acceleration. And it would have been nice if the Nobel committee had mentioned this," Sir Anthony James Leggett, also known as Prof Tony Leggett of the University of Illinois, a Nobel Prize winner in physics in 2003, wrote in his e-mail to Sidharth.

Prof Antony Hewish, a British astronomer who had won the Nobel for physics in 1974, also felt that Sidharth's work should have been recognised. "You must feel gratified that your ideas in 1997 were spot on," Hewish wrote.

Prof M.A. Fullana of the University of Valencia, Spain, in his message to the Indian scientist said he felt very disappointed.

"The scientific community unfortunately is also immersed in defects of our present economical and social system. Many times, the recognition of work does not go the path of justice. This is the case you have experienced in your person. It is obvious you deserve the just acknowledgement. It is clear you also deserve the Nobel Prize," Fullana said.

"I am sorry about the Nobel. There is considerable lobbying by American agents to influence the Nobel committee. Unfortunately we have none. Something must be done," C.R. Rao, Professor Emeritus at the Pennsylvania State University, observed.

Indian Physicist ‘cheated’ of Nobel?

Indian Physicist ‘cheated’ of Nobel?
This year’s Nobel Prize in physics went to three astronomers for their work demonstrating that “ dark energy” was propelling expansion of the universe at ever- increasing speeds. An Indian physicist claims that he had proposed a similar theory a year before the three astronomers first announced their results in 1998.

Dr B. G. Sidharth, director general of B. M. Birla Science Centre, had proposed the “ dark energy” model at the seventh Marcel Grossman Conference in Jerusalem in June 1997, and at another conference on quantum physics in Singapore a year later.

His research paper titled “ The Universe of Fluctuations” was published in International Journal of Modern Physics in 1998.

Astronomers, including Saul Perlmutter and Adam Reiss — two of the three winners of the 2011 Nobel — published their observations, which confirmed Sidharth’s theory.

Their studies were published in the Astrophysics Journal in 1999.

Sidharth asserts that it was only after his paper was published that the other researchers got their findings published. “ My theory was based on physics and mathematical calculations. The mathematical model that I followed is called fluctuational cosmology. On the other hand, the model proposed by the Nobel winners was based on observational findings while studying a supernova,” he said.

According to his model, there was no big bang resulting in the creation of matter and energy in the universe instantaneously. Rather the universe is permeated by an energy field or

quantum vacuum. Out of such an all- pervading energy field, particles are created in a totally random manner, a process that continues. “ This model was diametrically opposite to the accepted idea that the universe, dominated by dark matter, was actually decelerating. However, I proposed that driven by dark energy, the universe would be expanding and accelerating,” he said.

Sidharth recalls that his theory was written off by physicists since it had several inexplicable concepts.

“ Several astronomers in 1998 confided to me that my observations were wrong. What is surprising is that when the three astronomers also proposed the same theory based on observational findings, it was also rejected.” He said the presence of dark energy was later confirmed by the Wilkinson Microwave Probe ( WMAP) and the Sloane Digital Sky Survey. He claims that his research papers had received several critical reviews.

Though Sidharth had presented his papers at the Jerusalem conference and got them published in the international journals, they went unnoticed by the subsequent researchers, including the three Nobel prize winners.

Sidharth feels that the Nobel academy should have acknowledged his contribution, but does not plan to take up the issue with it. However, he said, several of his scientist friends are planning to write to the Academy. “ I am happy that my findings have been reconfirmed, though I did not expect that the theory would fetch the Nobel prize,” he signs off.


Source: http://www.defence.pk/forums/world-affairs/135407-indian-physicist-cheated-nobel.html#ixzz2FnjRR37x

الدكتور النشائى فى قناة الخليجية وبرنامج مواجهات بتاريخ 20-07-2-2012

Dr. Mohamed Al- Naschie in the ALFATH

comment from Prof. Tharwat El-Sherbini

Received this very gentle comment from Prof. Tharwat El-Sherbini, who is a Distinguished Professor of Physics and he is the son of an eminent Professor of Physics as well. Prof. Tharwat has received every State Merit and Recognition there is in Egypt.    

From: Tharwat El-Sherbini ; 
Subject: Re: Ultimate F 
Sent: Wed, Dec 12, 2012 10:16:25 PM 

I am always an admirer of prof. M. S. El Naschie. In his research work he tackles subtle problems in theoretical physics. With his elegant mathematical treatments he oftenly reaches convenient, logical and accurate solutions. This is clear in his work on  high energy quantum physics, heterotic strings, E (infinite) spaces, and more recently on dark matter and the unification of gravity and quantum mechanics. His work was crowned by the discovery of the extension of the well known Einstein's equation (E=mc2) to become E=mc2/22).   I hope that prof. El Naschie will continue to show us how nature works.                                                  Prof. Th. M. El Sherbini

On the Shoulder of Giants

Einstein Time Magazine Cover Picture A threefold falsity

Einstein Time Magazine Cover Picture
A threefold falsity

I think that it is only a slight exaggeration to say that when anyone finds his picture one day on the cover page of Time Magazine, then he has reached the Media Promised Land. Some maintain ( for instance the Egyptain Fareed Zakaria) that at least in politics you don't get your picture there except on the order of the White House. In any case the picture of Einstein with the mushroom smoke typical of the atomic bomb explosion with E=mc² written on it is threefold misleading.

In fact it helped mislead generations of laymen and scientists into thinking that Einstein's research had anything to do with the bomb and that E = mc² has anything to do with the energy released in atomic explosions. Einstein being a media star at the time was asked by Leo Szillard to write to Roosevelt urging him to develop an atomic bomb. He told him:"You are an officially certified genius and they may listen to you. They would not listen to a specialist like me." Szillard meant it ironically of course. Einstein signed the letter written by Szillard and the rest is history.

Mohamed El-Naschie (محمد النشائى)

In any event I personally like to read a nice popular scientific book and I read many of them. However I must forewarn from the pitfalls of mixing politics and religion with real mathematical and experimental science. The Internet is a double-edged sword and media tabloid have nothing to do with real science.

Ultimate F

Quantum theorem shakes foundations

Prof. Rindler on the experimental and theoretical limitation of Einstein’s Theory

Prof. Rindler on the experimental and theoretical limitation of Einstein’s E=mc²

We are still within the very same context of Mohamed El Naschie’s surprising extension of Einstein’s media star formula E=mc².

Today there are only at most handful experts on Relativity who could possibly be measured to the German Wolfgang Rindler. If you are searching for the best written books on Relativity then Rindler is the author, the co-author or at a minimum his name will be all over the book. In one of his acclaimed books “Relativity” published by Oxford Press (2004), Prof. Rindler writes on pages 111 and 112 the following: “Nevertheless, Einstein’s assertions of the full equivalence of mass and energy, according to the famous formula  E=mc² was in part a hypothesis as we shall see. It cannot be uniquely deduced from the basic laws”

Then on page 112 he continues: “In fact it is equation (6.9) that supplies the constant of proportionality between E and m. And it is the enormity of this constant that explains why the mass increases corresponding to the easily measurable kinetic energies of particles in classical collision had never been observed.”

We say that in a situation where relativity and quantum mechanics are both relevant simultaneously, E=mc² is inaccurate and we must use Mohamed El Naschie’s equation E=mc² /22.In fact he gives a very reasonable justification for that based on Witten’s T-duality and this is why his equation agrees with the accurate data collected by the WMAP and the supernova teams headed by Perlmutter, Schmidt and Riess who earned the 2011 Nobel Prize in Physics.

To date this data is the only reliable experimental confirmation of energy-mass relation at quantum relativity geometrical scales i.e. cosmological scales.

I hope, as many others have hoped before me that this silences the irrelevant and artificially constructed reasons used to object to El Naschie’s formula. This is a formula which agrees with reality i.e. cosmic measurements and that on its own should be sufficient.

M.S.

Robert Mills on the Lack of Experimental Evidence for Einstein's Theory

Robert Mills on the Lack of Experimental Evidence for Einstein E=mc²

Some, in fact many scientists are in a state of disbelief that Mohamed El Naschie was able to revise Einstein’s masterpiece theory E=mc². Not always but frequently they cite fission and fusion in reactors and weapons as experimental proof of Einstein’s most famous formula in the world.  Of course these are very poor examples as anyone would discover who carefully read the writings of the masters of the trade as opposed to Wikipedia or other loose popular media articles.

First who is Robert Mills? This Professor who excelled as a teacher is the very same great man and co-discoverer of Yan-Mills’ theory i.e. the Center of Quantum Field Theory which was the road travelled by Prof. Gerard ‘tHooft to complete the standard model and obtain his Nobel Prize in Physics and establish himself as one of the principal architects of modern theoretical physics.

In his wonderful textbook: “Spacetime and Quanta” published by W. H. Freeman and Company, New York (1994) John Mills starts by outlining relativity theory before going into quantum mechanics. On page 164 of this book, he writes:

“The energy from fission and fusion comes from tiny differences in the binding energies of different nuclei, not from the destruction of particles, just the same as with ordinary combustion.”

Nothing could be stated clearer than that.  Mohamed El Naschie merely extended Einstein’s formula to the quantum gravity domain and he thereby confirmed Einstein generally and did not contradict his basic ideas.

M. S. (2012)

The Basic Principles behind Mohamed El Naschie's revision of Einstein's celebrated formula

The Basic Principles behind Mohamed El Naschie's revision of Einstein's celebrated formula E = mc² to E=mc²/22 which stands on the shoulders of giants

We live in a time that is very different from that when science was all about science or at least was mainly about discovering how nature works with only one reward which is the personal satisfaction of contributing to mankind's enlightenment. Presently prizes and far worse funding are paramount considerations which draw the most strange and foreign elements to science namely media spectacles, Internet hype or defamation and some of the most distasteful methods of illegal competition.

Here I will consider the latest and probably the most important result in theoretical physics since 1905 which is Mohamed El Naschie's revision of Einstein's E = mc² to E = (mc²)/(22.18033989) mc²/22. From a media viewpoint and depending on one's political, religious and ethical prejudices, the result may be described in vocabulary terms as ranging from heresy to absolute pure genius. I personally could see how patriotic Egyptians would rejoice that an Egyptian engineer has proven a German Jewish icon to be wrong by 95.5% and turned European Theoretical Physics upside down. Others filled with hatred to anything Muslim or Arab will dismiss El Naschie's work offhand without even reading it and will be outraged at how an Egyptian engineer dares to place himself on the same level as the greatest brain humanity has ever seen namely Albert Einstein. Sober facts however do show that all these stances and attitudes have nothing whatsoever to do with science.

In what follows I would like to put El Naschie's important work in its proper context. The most striking aspect of his work is that it proves the basic truth and elegance of not only Newton and Einstein but also the pioneers and heroes of quantum mechanics i.e. Heisenberg, Schrodinger, Dirac and their colleagues. The point is that Einstein has generalized Newton's space and time as well as gravity. Mohamed El Naschie has in a very similar way merely generalized Einstein's Relativity to include quantum mechanics, which is by itself a great deal, but by no means more than that.

People thought wrongly for a long time that because Relativity on its own and Quantum Mechanics also on its own are extremely successful models of Nature then there can be no context where both theories could be changed in a major way. This is wrong because at the level of quantum gravity at the extremely small scale of the Planck Length, Newtonian gravity changes in strength in a very major way. At the other end i.e. at very large scales such as the Hubble Radius, which is measured in hundreds of light years, the contra part of Newtonian gravity namely relativity must change in a considerably large degree in order to accommodate the strength of quantum entanglement which accumulates to the extent of reducing the total energy of the cosmos by almost 95.5%. El Naschie could have never reached his beautiful results without standing on the shoulders of giants like Newton, Einstein, Heisenberg, Schrodinger, Dirac, Legget, Connes, Hardy, Nottale, Smolin, Magueijo and many others.  

With that I hope I can rest my case.

A.E.

الأسس العلمية التى مكنت اينشتاين مصر من تصحيح نظرية اينشتاين وأشهر معادلاته

الأسس العلمية التى مكنت اينشتاين مصر من تصحيح نظرية اينشتاين

 وأشهر معادلاته

هناك مبادئ هامة لابد من أن توضح وتشرح بتأنى وإيجاز لكى يستطيع المرء من أن يتفهم كيف تمكن العالم العربى المصرى الأستاذ الدكتورمهندس محمد صلاح الدين النشائى من اكتشاف خطأ أساسى ضخم فى معادلة اينشتاين الأشهر التى تقول أن الطاقة تساوى الكتلة فى مربع سرعة الضوء حيث تمكن النشائى أن يوضح بما لا يدعى مجال لأى شك أن القانون الصحيح يجب أى يكون نفس قانون اينشتاين لكن بعد أن يقسم الناتج على اثنين وعشرون(22). لكى يفهم المرء هذا الموضوع لابد أن نعلم الآتى :

1- هناك مفهوم خاطئ أن قانون اينشتاين أختبر فى المعمل اختباراً كمياً دقيقاً وأن نتائج التفاعلات الذرية المختلفة تدل على صحة القانون. هذا خاطئ مائة فى المائة وعلى سبيل المثال وليس الحصر كل التجارب والأمثلة التى تستخدم لتأكيد صحة القانون هى تجارب غير كمية ولم يستطيع أحد أن يقيس بأى مقدار من الدقة كمية المادة التى تحولت إلى طاقة بل أن أغلب تلك الأمثلة لا يحدث فيها أى تحول للمادة إلى طاقة. هذا ينطبق على المفاعل الذرى وينطبق على القنبلة الذرية بالإضافة أن النشائى لا يشكك فى صحة نظرية اينشتاين بتاتاً من الوجه العام ولكنه أثبت أن هناك معامل مفقود فى هذه المعادلة ألا وهو القسمة على اثنين وعشرون (22) وهو ما ياخذ نظريه الكم فى الاعتبار.

2- التجربة الوحيدة التى تستطيع أن تحدد العلاقة الكمية بين الكتلة والطاقة هى قياسات الطاقة الكونية بأجمعها, هذه هى القياسات التى حازت على جائزة نوبل لعام 2011 وهى القياسات التى أدت إلى فكرة الطاقة الداكنة المفقودة. القياسات تدل على أن تقريباً واحد مقسوم على اثنين وعشرون (22) هى كمية الطاقة الكونية بالمقارنة بما تنباءت به معادلة اينشتاين الأصلية لذلك فهناك احتمالين، احتمال منطقى سهل هو أن هناك خمسة وتسعون فى المائة (95%) من الطاقة الكونية مختبئة ولا نستطيع قياسها وهذا ما تبناه أغلب العلماء، أما الاحتمال الثانى فهو أنه هناك خطأ كمى فى نظرية اينشتاين بسبب هذا الالتباس وهو الأقرب إلى المنطق وعلى الرغم من ذلك لم يتبنى هذا الاحتمال سوى قلة قليلة من الناس وعلى رأسهم العالم المصرى محمد النشائى. الملفت للنظر حقاً هو أن تؤيد تلك القياسات نظرية النشائى وهذا ما يثبت صحتها المطلقه على مستوى تعادل النسبيه مع نظرية الكم اى النقطة التى تتطلب معادلة تجمع بين نظرية النسبية ونظرة الكم معاً فى وقت واحد.

3- هناك نظريتان أساسياتان ترتكز عليهما جميع علوم الطبيعة النظرية: الأولى هى نظرية الكم والثانية هى: نظرية النسبية  ونظرية النشائى تصهر النظريتان فى نظرية واحدة ولذلك هى أدق من أى نظرية أخرى. الجزء الأول فى نظرية النشائى ألا وهو الكتلة فى مربع سرعة الضوء هى نظرية النسبية. أما الجزء الثانى من نظرية النشائى فهو المعامل واحد مقسوم على اثنين وعشرون (22). هذا المعامل هو نصف معامل معروف باسم الالتصاق الكمى بنظرية الكم ومقداره التقريبى واحد مقسوم على احدى عشر. بضرب النتيجاتان حصل النشائى بطريقة مذهلة فى سهولتها على النتيجة الصحيحة التى تجمع نظرية الكم ونظرية النسبية فى معادلة واحدة وهذا هو السبب وراء نجاح نظرية النشائى فى التنبؤ بالكمية الحقيقية للطاقة الكونية والتى تتفق بدرجة غير عادية فى دقتها مع القياسات الكونية التى قام بها العلماء الثلاثة الذين حازوا على جائزة نوبل فى الطبيعة عام 2011. نكرر مرة اخرى ان تجارب مثل التصادم التفرقى لكومبتن لا علاقه لها بنظريه تجمع بين نظريه الكم مع نظريه النسبيه فى نظريه واحده وهى نظريه الكم النسبى كما يحب النشائى ان يسميها او الكم التثاقلى كما هى معروفه عالميا. للتوضيح أكثر نقول أن القوة الاساسية تتحد جميعاً عند طول غاية فى الصغر يسمى المسافة البلانكية هذه المسافة تقرب من سنتميتر واحد مقسم على عشرة وإلى جانبها 32 صفر هذه مسافة لايمكن حتى تصورها وعند هذه المسافة لايمكن التعامل مع نظرية الكم بدون ادماج النسبية والتثاقل أى الجاذبية فى المعادلات المعنية. هناك فى الجانب المعاكس أطوال ومسافات طولها يتعدى الخيال وحتى الخيال العلمى على الرغم انها موجوده بالفعل. هذه هى المسافات التى تقاس بملاين السنوات الضوئية وأكبرها هو قطر الكون الذى يطلق عليه أسم مسافة "هبل". هذه هى المسافة التى تعنينا والتى يصبح من الضرورى عندها وحتى قبلها ادماج نظرية الكم مع نظرية النسبية والا سوف نحصل على اجابات لامعنى لها إذا قارنت بالقياسات الكونية والمعملية. بعنى أخر لايمكن ان نستخدم نظرية اينشتاين التى لاتاخذ نظرية الكم فى الاعتبار عندما نتعامل مع هذه الابعاد الخيالية. بالمقارنة هذا هو سر نجاح القانون المعدل الذى استحدثة النشائى لكى يستطيع ان يتنبئ بدقة الطاقة الكلية للكون وهو ماحدث. لهذا السبب ولهذا السبب فقط نجح النشائى حيث فشل إينشتاين ولكن لابد ان نعم تمام العلم لولا أعمال إينشتاين ما تمكن النشائى ابدا من يتوصل إلى نتيجاته. العلم هو نتيجة لتراكم المعلومات وقد قالها نيوتن من مئات السنوات "إذا كنت تمكنت من ترى على بعد شاسع فذلك لاننى كنت اقف على اكتاف عملاقة" 

كاتب المقالة يرجو أن تكون تلك السطور القليلة قد أوضحت نظرية النشائى وقربها أكثر إلى الأذهان.

م.ح.ب

اليوم السابع | مرشح سابق للرئاسة يطالب بالرجوع لدستور 71 لإنهاء أزمة "الدستورى"

طالب الدكتور محمد النشائى، العالم فى الهندسة النووية والطبيعة النظرية، والمرشح السابق لانتخابات الرئاسة، باستخدام دستور 1971 خلال الفترة الراهنة، وإلغاء اللجنة التأسيسية لإنهاء الأزمات التى تشهدها البلاد عقب الإعلان الدستور الذى أصدره الدكتور محمد مرسى رئيس الجمهورية.

ودعا "النشائى" فى تصريحات لـ"اليوم السابع"، جموع الشعب المصرى بالتوحد صفا واحدا، والعودة للعمل حتى يعود الإنتاج ونتجاوز الأزمة الراهنة"

اليوم السابع | مرشح سابق للرئاسة يطالب بالرجوع لدستور 71 لإنهاء أزمة "الدستورى"