Chaos, Solitons and Fractals 22 (2004) 495–511

www.elsevier.com/locate/chaos

The Concepts of E Infinity:

An elementary introduction to the Cantorian-fractal
theory of quantum physics
M.S. El Naschie *

Solvay Institute, Free University of Brussels, Belgium

Department of Astronomy & Astrophysics, University of Cairo, Egypt

Abstract
The paper is an elementary introduction to the concepts of E Infinity of quantum physics. In the first two paragraphs
the main concepts of E Infinity theory and some of the principle results have been explained. Subsequently we address
the problem of the mass spectrum of the standard model from various viewpoints, in particular, from that of gravi-
tational instanton.
Particular attention is paid throughout the paper to giving an intuitive grasp for an extended theory of vacuum
fluctuation based on Dirac’s hole theory and E Infinity theory. It is further shown how the golden mean and logarithmic
scalings can be used to understand quantum gravity and how the new transfinite Dirac’s theory can explain certain
anomalous positron production which was observed by several experimental groups worldwide.
Ó 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Preliminary remarks and background information

Despite of the great success and undeniable brilliance of the standard model of high-energy elementary particles, it is
fair to say that it is by no means perfect. This is not an opinion of some critics but a competent judgement of some of
the leading figures that contributed more than anyone else to the foundation and the main carrying billiards upon which
the standard model is based. In this respect, the reader may be referred to an up-to-date, accurate and very readable
account of the standard model written by t’Hooft, the 1999 Nobel laureate in physics [1].
May be we should elaborate the preceding point a little using some obvious and elementary examples. We all know
the dimensionless constant
a0 ¼ 1=137. This is one of the most fundamental constants in nature and plays a pivotal role
in the theory of electromagnetism as well as the standard model as a whole. And we all know also that a second related
dimensionless number involving the masses of the two most fundamental building blocks of our very own physical
existence namely the electron and the proton is given by b ¼ mmpe ffi mmNe ffi 1=1836.
It seems that the first physicists to stress the fundamental and critical role played by these two pure numbers
a0 ffi 137 and b


ffi 1836 was no one less than Werner Heisenberg’s teacher, Nobel laureate Max Born, one of the main
founders of quantum mechanics. In around 1935 Born gave a public lecture entitled ‘‘The Mysterious number 137’’.
The situation with regard to b
was summed up some time later by another leading physicist Regge [2] who wrote a
noteworthy article from which we may quote the following passage:

‘‘. . . our universe would be determined by the fact that only the choice mmNe ffi 1836 guarantees that there is a long
chain of molecules of the right kind and size as to make biological phenomena possible. It could be for instance

*
Present address: P.O. Box 272, Cobham, Surrey KT11 2FQ, UK.

0960-0779/$ - see front matter Ó 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.chaos.2004.02.028
496 M.S. El Naschie / Chaos, Solitons and Fractals 22 (2004) 495–511

that the slightest variation in these parameters would change critically the size and the length of the rings in the
DNA helix as to invalidate its typical way of replicating itself. . .. I am describing this somewhat paradoxical mech-
anism just in order to warn that we may expect quite exotic criteria to come into play in fixing the fundamental
constant’’.

The uninitiated maybe thus mildly astonished to read the above indirect admission of the fact that the standard
model of elementary particles, the most fundamental theory of nature that we have, does not fix the fundamental
constant in nature, such as the mass spectrum nor the coupling constant of the numerous interactions not even for those
critical indispensable values which could decide on the existence of life in our universe as we know it such as
a0 ffi 137
and b
ffi 1836. In fact within the framework of the classical version of the standard model we know, no explanation for
the fundamental classical constant G, let alone the relation between this constant and the other coupling constants of
the electro-weak ð
awe Þ and the strong force ð
as Þ.
Another obvious weakness in the classical version of the standard model, which is related to the above and which has
drawn even the wider attention of the non-specialized, but scientifically interested general public at large and was re-
ported intermittently in the media, particularly in connection with a doomed gigantic project to construct a super-
conducting collider, is the outstanding question about the Higgs particle and the Higgs field [3].
To explain this point we have to recall that there is a general consensus among specialists that unless a certain
particle, named after the British physicist Peter Higgs, is found the entire standard model would be mathematically less
than consistant, to say the least. In addition, the massless gauge bosons and massless fermions of the standard model
would remain massless and we could not explain the existence of the observed massive particles. In particular, the
electro-weak theory would loose t’Hooft’s and Veltman’s mathematical proof of its re-normalizability which earned
them the 1999 Nobel prize in physics and the experimentally found masses of the W  and Z 0 would be also inexplicable.
In short, the classical form of the standard model necessitates the Higgs. However, the Higgs has a major drawback.
Despite countless dedicated and extensive experimental efforts to find the Higgs, no one could say with any degree of
confidence that it was observed. Just the opposite, as there is many indirect experimental evidence that the Higgs may
not exist [3].
In addition, there is at present a minority opinion that even if the Higgs would be found experimentally, that would
not and could not be taken as a final explanation of the mass problem. To explain that let us just assume that the Higgs
symmetry breaking or more accurately said that the Higgs mechanism has given the massless particles, masses, then it
would remain to explain from where and how the Higgs particles acquired their mass. For this reason we need to
assume the existence of a second Higgs field. This field, if it exists, would be related to another famous symmetry
breaking named after Peccei and Quinn. This PQ symmetry probably necessitated the existence of a new particle as
argued by Weinberg. The Axion, as this particle came to be known, has, exactly as the Higgs, eluded all experimental
attempts to find it [1,3].
We will return to the axion and some other similar exotic particles postulated based on various famous experi-
ments conducted in Darmstadt–Frankfurt–Bristol–Dubna and Cairo once more when we come to talk more explicitly
about the main subject of the present paper, namely E Infinity theory. We will also consider an alternative theory to
that of the Higgs to explain the mass problem and calculate from first principles the mass spectrum of the standard
model [4,5].
Now one could justifiably ask why it is not possible to determine the mass spectrum of the standard model in a
simple manner without all this fuss. The straightforward answer to this question is equally simple for how could we
hope to find the mass of the elementary particle while gravity is explicitly excluded from the standard model [1–8].
To elaborate this point a little further, we recall that nature has chosen to create gravity as an extremely long range
but extremely weak force in comparison with electromagnetism or the strong force. For instance compared with the
electromagnetic force gravity is 1040 times weaker. Consequently it made a great deal of sense to ignore gravity for these
tiny elementary particles. Alas things are rarely that simple in the realm of reality. It is true that gravity is a feeble effect
for elementary particles but the principle of equivalence used by Einstein in his general relativity implies that inertia that
is to say mass is just the other side of the same medal, namely gravity. Consequently, by leaving gravity outside the
standard model, we have implicitly left out the mass spectrum as well and are forced therefore to put it by hand into the
model and base ourselves on the experimentally obtained data for the various particles [1,3,4].
Seen that way we could characterize a theory like that of the Higgs as an ingenious attempt to explain the mass
problem without solving first, as should be, the unification problem [6]. By that we mean unifying Einstein’s theory of
gravity with quantum mechanics in a manner similar to Maxwell’s unification of electricity, magnetism and light. If
such an undertaking proves to be outside our analytical capabilities, then we should at least find a way of fixing the free
constants of the standard model and reduce them from some 26 parameters to a couple of parameters, even if we have
to start, ab initio, as was done in super string theory as well as our E Infinity theory [4–8].
 M.S. El Naschie / Chaos, Solitons and Fractals 22 (2004) 495–511 497

2. The topology of space time and quantum gravity

The standard model maybe based on quantum field theory and that in turn is based on quantum mechanics. On the
other hand it is well known since a long time that general relativity and quantum mechanics, the two pillars of modern
physics are not compatible. To develop a theory for quantum gravity or include gravity into the standard model under
these circumstances is an extremely difficult task that has eluded generations of distinguished scientists, notably Einstein
himself [4,8].
It is well known that Einstein’s theory is formulated in terms of the curved Riemennian Geometry where the cur-
vature of space time is central to the very core of the theory. Consequently, in a corresponding unified theory, the
quanta of quantum gravity, which is termed graviton, has a double nature. It is both at the same time, a particle and a
geometry. In orthodox quantum mechanics the situation is much simpler because it was made intentionally much
simpler by keeping spacetime flat and passive. Space time in quantum mechanics is very similar to classical mechanics, a
stage where the play takes place. In relativity, space time is an active participant in the play. Thus even at a first glance
one would realize that unifying both theories will be anything but trivial because the conception of spacetime in both
theories is fundamentally different.
We could notice something similar even if we confine ourselves to the field equation of Einstein where we observe the
following: On the left-hand side of the field equation, we have the Riemennian tensor that is to say a geometry. On the
right hand side, by contrast, we have the mass tensor. From the viewpoint of quantum gravity there is an inconsistency
here which spells disaster. Riemennian geometry is continuous, but mass, that is energy comes on the quantum level
only in discrete forms as shown long ago by Planck [7]. To be consistent we have to discretize the geometry and this is
easier said than done. In recent years this line of thinking has been developed into a fast field which may be termed
quantum or quantized geometry. In a sense our own E Infinity theory maybe regarded as an offspring, albeit a very far
one, of this quantized geometry [4–6].
To be precise in E Infinity we use a resolution-dependent-geometry similar to what is commonly called a discon-
nected fractal. Thus strictly speaking, in E Infinity we neither quantize nor simply discretize. What we really do is that
we discretize transfinitely. This term ‘‘transfinitely’’ which we borrow from Cantor theory of transfinite sets will be
explained in detail later on. In Fig. 1 we show and comment on a picture for a four dimensional polytop which may help
in developing an accurate mental vision of what eð1Þ looks like.

3. Relativity, transfinite sets and quantum mechanics

General relativity was formulated following Einstein’s ingenious insight within a program that came to be known as
geometrizing physics. A similar program but pertinent to mathematics was that of Klein which is known as the Er-
langon programme [4].
However, things could be understood more deeply and the resistance of general relativity to be extended to quantum
gravity may be understood if we look at the topology underlying the Euclidean and thus the Riemennian geometry
carefully.
Let us examine the basic concept of a line or more generally a curve. Classical geometry used in classical mechanics
and general relativity would not dispute the fact that a line is a one-dimensional object, while a point is zero-dimen-
sional. Furthermore, it would seem at first sight that a line consists of infinite number of points and that it is simply the
path drawn by a zero-dimensional point moving in the two or three-dimensional space. Special relativity would add a
fourth dimension to that, namely, time and present us with a simple metric with the conventional signature (+, +, +, )).
However, are things really as simple as they appear here? The somewhat surprising answer, to those who are not
familiar with the work of Cantor and the extension of Cantor’s work by Peano, Menger, von Koch, Hausdorff and
many others [9–12], is no; classical geometry similar to classical mechanics has made various tacit simplifications and
ignored several subtle topological facts.
Let us give a trivial argument to support our claim. If a line is one-dimensional and if it is made of infinite number of
points then the sum of infinitely many zeros should be equal to one––that is of course not true. On the other hand, we
know that there is a curve named Peano–Hilbert curve that is area filling and is two-dimensional and as if this is not
sufficient to shake our most basic notion about curves and dimensionality [9]; A Peano–Hilbert curve could be made to
fill a 3D space and may therefore be called three-dimensional object. By contrast we can construct three-dimensional
cubes called the Menger sponge which has a fractal dimension more than 2 and less than 3 namely D ¼ ln 20= ln 3 as
explained for instance in the classical book of Mandelbrodt [9].
The existence of all these non-conventional forms described in modern parlance, following the French American
mathematician Mandelbrodt [9] as fractals may be traced back to the archetypal transfinite set known as Cantor triadic
498 M.S. El Naschie / Chaos, Solitons and Fractals 22 (2004) 495–511

Fig. 1. The 120-cell Coxeter four dimensional polytop upon which the M 4 hyperbolic manifold with vðM 4 Þ ¼ 26 is based. The figure
shows for the first time the exact geometrical connectivity upon which eð1Þ space is based. The figure naturally does not show the
transfinite point which must be superimposed on the figure to produce eð1Þ . The E infinity spacetime may be regarded as a fuzzy
version of M 4 which is homomorphic to it. We may note that the symmetry group of this Coxeter ‘‘scaffolding’’ of our E-infinity space
is identical to the Schl€
afli symmetry group {5, 3, 3} and is given by

g5;3;3 ¼ ð120Þ2 ¼ 14400

5 5
which is the number of congruent orthoschemes –– –– –– –– of volume 13p2 =5400 ¼ ð128:3048572Þ=5400 ¼ 0:023760158. We
note also the proximity of 13p2 ¼ 128:3 to
aew ’ 128. Finally we may give characteristic numbers of the polytop in this case which are:
N0 ¼ 600; N1 ¼ 1200; N2 ¼ 720 and N3 ¼ 120:

set which possesses a certain dimension called the Hausdorff dimension D ¼ ln 2= ln 3 ffi 0:63. It is a random version of
this cantor set with D ¼ 0:6180339 which is de facto the backbone set of our E Infinity spacetime [4]. It is extremely
simple to construct a triadic cantor set We just take the unit interval, then delete the middle third except for the end
points then repeat this operation for the two parts left and so on indefinitely [9]. That way we end up with an infinite set
of points which although of a zero measure i.e. zero length still possesses a dimension namely D ¼ ln 2= ln 3. For a
random constructionpusing
ffiffi a uniform distribution one finds an unlikely value namely, the golden mean as a Hausdorff
dimension D ¼ U ¼ 521 ¼ 0:618033989.
The interesting thing about this cantor set is that although, it is a set of disjointed points, it possesses the same
cardinality as the continuum. It may be this coincidence that makes it an ideal compromise between the discrete and the
continuum. It is transfinite discrete. Thus our E Infinity which we will use to ‘‘topologize’’ physics is based on these
transfinite sets as will be explained shortly.
At this point we just need to mention that the English–Canadian physicist Ord [10] has shown that using transfinite
fractal spacetime, the Shrodinger and the Dirac equations, could be derived without analytical continuation out of a
random walk model. Similar work, but not identical, was carried out by the French cosmologist Nottale in France as
well as the present author [11].
Thus the main idea behind E Infinity approach is to replace the classical spacetime of quantum mechanics and the
Riemannian spacetime of general relativity by the transfinite spacetime of E Infinity theory [4,5]. In Fig. 1 we give for
the first time a picture of the Coxeter 4D polytop up which eð1Þ could be visualized.

4. The effect of holes on the geometry of spacetime

It could be said with some justification that all what distinguishes E Infinity from other theories is that it takes into
account the effect induced by holes, particularly when an infinity of them are present, on the geometry of spacetime. The
two main mathematical tools used for this purpose are first the Hausdorff dimension and second the Euler characteristic
of the Cantorian sets [4,12].
 M.S. El Naschie / Chaos, Solitons and Fractals 22 (2004) 495–511 499

4.1. The Hausdorff dimension

Suppose we like to determine the length of a line using finite difference method. Dividing the length of the segments
with Dxi one finds
X
i¼n
l¼ Dxi
i¼1

To simplify the expression we assume an equi-distance division and find that

l ¼ nDx

Generalizing to D dimensions we find the hyper vacuum to be

V ¼ nðDxÞD

Solving for D and assuming a unit volume (unit interval) one finds
ln 1 ¼ ln n þ D ln Dx

and thus
D ¼  ln n= ln Dx

Let us consider the first iteration of cantor triadic set. In this case Dx is 1/3 of the length of the unit interval while the
number of parts left is n ¼ 3  1 ¼ 2. Inserting in D one finds
D ¼  ln 2= lnð1=3Þ

Consequently
D ¼ ln 2= ln 3

as should be [9].
Let us take as a second example the Menger sponge. In this case the first iteration shows that the total number of
cubes is (3)(3)(3) ¼ 27 and by deleting the central cubes we find n ¼ 27  7 ¼ 20. Consequently for the Menger sponge
[9]
D ¼ ln 20= ln 3 ¼ 2:7266

To find the usual topological dimension we have to undo the deletion of the central 7 cubes and find that
n ¼ 20 þ 7 ¼ 27

That way we find the topological dimension DT as a limiting case

D ¼ ln 27= ln 3 ¼ lnð3Þ3 = ln 3 ¼ 3

as should be [9].
Thus unlike the topological dimension, the Hausdorff dimension can account for the change in the topology due to
the introduction of infinite number of holes on all scales which characterizes many forms of fractals.

4.2. The Euler characteristic

It is well known that for a polyhedron the Euler characteristic v is always equal to 2. That means
v¼V EþF ¼2

where V is the number of vortices., E the number of edges and F is the number of faces [11].
On the other hand for a two-dimensional oriented manifold we have [11]
v ¼ 2  2g

where g is the number of holes and is termed the genus.

For a sphere the number of holes is g ¼ 0 and we have thus
v ¼ 2  ð2Þð0Þ ¼ 2
500 M.S. El Naschie / Chaos, Solitons and Fractals 22 (2004) 495–511

exactly as for a polyhedral. That means a polyhedral is a topological sphere. For a torus on the other hand, we have
g ¼ 1 and therefore
v ¼ 2  ð2Þð1Þ ¼ 0

Now the question that poses itself is the following. Is there a way to write down an expression analogous to v but this
time for fractals of the Cantorian type. At first sight this may seem to be impossible because a Cantorian fractal such as
the triadic cantor set or its generalization to two-dimensions called Serpenski gasket has an infinite number of holes.
Nonetheless, the author suggested in [11] the following procedure. Like in topological probability, we take the
Hausdorff dimension to represent a measure for the points left in the set. Consequently, when we subtract this measure
from the topological embedding dimension of the fractal one obtains a ‘‘measure’’ for the holes in the set. Thus for the
random Serpenski gasket with a Hausdorff dimension equal to the inverse of the Hausdorff dimension of a random
cantor set namely
Ds ¼ 1=D ¼ 1=/ ¼ 1 þ / ¼ 1:618033989

subtracting Ds from the topological dimension one finds a complimentary dimension which is a representation for g of
the random Serpenski:
g ¼ DT  Ds ¼ 2  ð1 þ /Þ ¼ 1  / ¼ /2

Inserting in our formula for v one finds

vs ¼ 2  ð2Þð/2 Þ ¼ 1 þ /3 ¼ 1:236067977

Lifting this value to higher dimensions one finds

v ¼ Dð10Þ ð1 þ /3 Þ=2 ¼ ð5Þð1 þ /3 Þ ¼ 6 þ k ¼ 6:18033989

We note that this is equal to the Dð6Þ of the mass sector of the transfinite heterotic string theory [4,7,8].
Since the number of generations of leptons is given by [4,7,8]
nge ¼ v=2

one finds
nge ¼ ð6 þ kÞ=2 ¼ 3 þ k=2 ’ 3

which is very close to the three generations observed experimentally within the accuracy of the standard model of
elementary particles [1,4].

5. The VAK of vacuum fluctuation and the main dimensions of e(‘)

Although quantum mechanics assumes a smooth four-dimensional Euclidean spacetime there is a place where
something more elaborate appears. With that we are referring to Dirac’s hole theory or Dirac’s Sea [13]. This is the way
Dirac has suggested how the neutral vacuum should be envisaged and how pair creations and annihilations can be
explained [13].
In essence Dirac’s sea is a classical space full of holes in which oppositely charged balls are snuggly placed to form
the neutral vacuum. In other words this is an arena for algebraic topology [1] and Cantorian fractal manifolds [4], which
may be used to model the vacuum in a far more sophisticated way than that envisaged originally by Dirac.
One way of developing such elaborate vacuum topology is to use E Infinity and look at the vacuum as the limit set of
a randomly formed hyperbolic self-similar space with quasi symmetric structure akin to that of E Infinity theory, or a
generalized Penrose tiling in a higher dimension [18]. To explain all these somewhat contradictory terms we can do
nothing better than give an explicit derivation to fundamental equations of E Infinity theory [4].
As explained in many previous papers E Infinity space is made from an infinite number of intersections and union of
elementary cantor sets. Let us denote the Hausdorff dimension of these cantor sets by ðdcð0Þ Þn . That way one finds
ðdcð0Þ Þ0 ¼ 1; ðdcð0Þ Þ1 ¼ dcð0Þ ; ðdcð0Þ Þ2 ; . . . ; ðdcð0Þ Þ1 ¼ 0

Next we use ðdcð0Þ Þn as a statistical weight for the topological dimension n ¼ 1 to 1 and determine the average dimen-
sions hni, i.e. the expectation value of n. This value is easily found following the center of gravity theorem to be [4]:
 M.S. El Naschie / Chaos, Solitons and Fractals 22 (2004) 495–511 501
P1
n2 ðdcð0Þ Þn
hni ¼ P01 ð0Þ
0 nðdc Þn
since
X
1
nðdcð0Þ Þn ¼ ð1 þ dcð0Þ Þ=ð1  dcð0Þ Þ
0

and
X
1
n2 ðdcð0Þ Þn ¼ ½ð1 þ dcð0Þ Þ=ð1  dcð0Þ Þ2
0

one finds that

hni ¼ ð0Þðdcð0Þ Þ0 þ ð1Þðdcð1Þ Þ1 þ ð2Þðdcð0Þ Þ2 þ    ¼ ð1 þ dcð0Þ Þ=ð1  dcð0Þ Þ

Next let us calculate the average Hausdorff dimension hdc i corresponding to hni. To do that we sum all the ðdcð0Þ Þn
dimensions and find that [4,14]
X
1
ðdcð0Þ Þn ¼ 1=ð1  dcð0Þ Þ
0

Gauging this sum in terms of dcð0Þ one finds

X
1
hdc i ¼ ðdcð0Þ Þn =dcð0Þ ¼ 1=ðdcð0Þ ð1  dcð0Þ ÞÞ
0

If we require now that our E Infinity shall have no gaps and no overlapping then we must set hni equal to hdc i .
Proceeding that way one finds from [4] the following Peano–Hilbert space filling condition
hni ¼ hdc i
that
1 þ dcð0Þ 1
ð0Þ
¼ ð0Þ ð0Þ
1 dc dc ð1  dc Þ

Thus we have
ð1 þ dcð0Þ Þdcð0Þ ¼ 1

or
ðdcð0Þ Þ2 þ dcð0Þ  1 ¼ 0

This is a quadratic equation with the two solutions

rffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
ð0Þ 1 1 pffiffiffi
dc;1 ¼   þ 1 ¼ ð 5  1Þ=2 ¼ /
2 4
and
ð0Þ
dc;2 ¼ 1=/
ð0Þ
Since 0 < dcð0Þ < 1, only dc;1 is a valid solution for E Infinity.
Inserting back in hni and hdc i one finds that
1þ/
hni ¼ ¼ ð1=/Þ3 ¼ 4 þ /3
1/
and
1
hdc i ¼ ¼ ð1=/Þ3 ¼ 4 þ /3
/ð1  /Þ
502 M.S. El Naschie / Chaos, Solitons and Fractals 22 (2004) 495–511

Next let us see if we could solve the problem of lifting a cantor set dcð0Þ to higher dimensions n and find dcðnÞ for a given
dcð0Þ .
A hint at the solution of this problem comes from the fact that the generalization of the triadic set to two-dimensions
is the Serpenski gasket. Noting that the Hausdorff dimension of the gasket is simply the inverse of the triadic set then
one could write
dcð2Þ ¼ 1=dcð0Þ ¼ ð1=dcð0Þ Þ21

In the same time we know for sure that

dcð1Þ ¼ 1 ¼ ð1=dcð0Þ Þ0 ¼ ð1=dcð0Þ Þ11

generalizing by analogy and induction one can write that [4]

dcðnÞ ¼ ð1=dcð0Þ Þn1

Now let us examine the case for space filling, i.e. dcð0Þ ¼ / and four-dimensionality. That way one finds
dcð4Þ ¼ ð1=/Þ41 ¼ ð1=/Þ3 ¼ 4 þ /3

In other words we could state the so-called golden mean theorem of E Infinity, namely
hni ¼ hdc i ¼ dcðnÞ ¼ 4 þ /3 ¼ 4:236067977

if and only if dcð0Þ ¼ / and n ¼ 4.

This is a remarkable result which means that the formally infinite dimensional but hierarchical E Infinity space eð1Þ
looks from a distance as if it were four-dimensional nT ¼ 4, with a corresponding Hausdorff dimension which is equal to
4 plus the golden mean / to the third power hdc i ¼ 4 þ /3 . In the same time the weighted mean of the formal dimension
n ¼ 1 is also equal to

hni ¼ hdc i ¼ 4 þ /3

The preceding derivation could in some respect be regarded as a general proof for the essential four-dimensionality of
our physical space time. We perceive spacetime to be four-dimensional because this is the expectation value of the
dimension of spacetime [4]. In other words we, the macro-objects live in the expectation value of an otherwise infinite
dimensional hierarchical spacetime. The fact that we do not observe all other infinitely very small dimensions is simply a
matter of the resolution i.e. the accuracy of observation [4,19,24].
In E Infinity theory the claim is that different elementary particles inhabit different regions of spacetime and con-
sequently live in different dimensions [4].
The time is ripe now to explain the VAK, which stands for Vague Attractor of Kolmogorov [14]. To explain this
fundamental concept we should recall that a Hamiltonian system, that is a system for which energy is conserved with no
dissipation nor flutter does not possess attractors. In a Hamiltonian system we have a structurally unstable phase space.
To obtain stability damping is needed for one to encounter stable attractors and stable limit cycles.
Nevertheless, under certain circumstances, Hamiltonian system can display a complex behavior related to the cel-
ebrated KAM theorem due to Kolmogorov, Arnold and Moser [25] which was conjectured by the notable French field
medallist and inventor of catastrophe theory R. Thom [31], to be the stationary state of quantum system. Thom called
this complex layer of chaos inside periodic orbits that are again surrounded with chaotic region and so forth on all
scales, the vague attractor of Kolmogorov [19].
The VAK is of course not an attractor in the conventional sense because it is not a coarse system and lacks
‘‘frictional’’ stability. Nevertheless, there is an internal mathematical substitute for friction in this VAK and this is
explained in the KAM theorems as stemming from the irrationality of the ratio of certain fundamental Eigen fre-
quencies to the frequency of excitation [25]. As long as this ratio is sufficiently irrational number the dynamics is stable.
By contrast global chaos occurs when the ratio becomes a rational number. In this context we encounter the golden
mean of E Infinity once again because the golden mean is the most irrational number that there is. Consequently the
most stable periodic orbits are those that have the golden mean as a winding number. That way we can use the
destruction of the golden periodic orbit as a criteria for the onset of global chaos [23].
It is very easy to see why the golden mean is the most irrational number by expanding it in a continued fraction:
1
/¼
1 þ 1þ1 1
1þ
 M.S. El Naschie / Chaos, Solitons and Fractals 22 (2004) 495–511 503

Since 1 is the smallest integer that there

pffiffi is, the above expansion is the slowest possible conversion towards a rational
approximation of the irrational / ¼ 521.
In anticipation of later sections, we may note that the relation between dynamical stability in the sense of KAM
theorem and the golden mean is the reason behind the initially strange observation, that most if not all, experimentally
measured masses of composite particles like hadrons, mesons and many resonance’s are a rather non-complex function
of the golden mean and its derivatives [23–25].

6. Symmetry breaking and new particles

Consider a two-dimensional simple pattern made by two colored tiles with clearly recognizable discrete symmetry. It
is trivially evident that removing a tile will destroy the nice symmetry of this pattern. In terms of the Dirac holes theory
the removed tile as well as the naked part left by removing the tile are two particles created by destroying the symmetry
of the pattern [17].
This is the most non-mathematical intuitive picture for the fact that in quantum mechanics any symmetry breaking is
always accompanied by the creation of a new particle. The axion which is supposed to appear due to breaking the so-
called Peccei-Quinn symmetry maybe understood in quite a similar way at least conceptually speaking and leaving all
intricate mathematics aside for the moment [30].
The question which should pose itself now on the other hand is the following: what about breaking a complex kind
of quasi-symmetry produced by super positioning infinitely many simple symmetries which produce intricate patterns
that are in a sense a mixture of order and chaos. Such complex symmetries were called by Field and Golubitsky [15]
average symmetry in the context of the complex symmetry of various strange attractors of corresponding chaotic
dynamical systems.
We conjecture that removing not one tile but a host of tiles does break: the symmetry of this not ‘‘completely’’
symmetric system. The mechanism of removing such large amount of ‘‘debris’’ is an earthquake-like shaking of the
average symmetry using what we call vacuum fluctuation [30].
Thus vacuum fluctuation breaks the ‘‘quasi’’ symmetry of the VAK and this produces a host of quasi-transfinite
particles of which the conjectured m ’ 1:8 MeV maybe one of many others [16,17].
Two more remarks here are in order. First we feel we maybe justified in calling these particles quasi particles because
they are produced from states of infinite superpositioning. When a corresponding ‘‘state vector’’ collapses such particle
will either be dissimilar to normal particles or it will be smashed into a large number of sub particles. Second among
these particles there will be predominantly a large number of particles whom we could call transfinite particles. Such
particles stem from transfinite corrections, like k ¼ /3 ð1  /3 Þ needed to keep the modular transformation, i.e. the
symplicticity of the VAK intact by area conservation. It is easily shown that mðkÞ ¼ 0:18033929 is found from the
expectation meson [16,17]
mp þ mp0
hmp i ¼
a0 MeV ’ 137 MeV ’
2
by a simple scaling
mðkÞ ¼ ð1=10Þhmp ið/Þð101Þ ¼ hmp ið/9 Þ=10 ¼ 0:18033989

Seen that way the m ’ 1:8 MeV particle may be just a similar scaling
m ¼ hmp ið/9 Þ ¼ 1:8033989 ¼ ð10ÞðmðkÞÞ MeV

7. The E Infinity scaling and the mass spectrum of the standard model

In considering the Penrose universe [18] we have shown in previous works following a theorem due originally to the
Cambridge mathematician Conway that in this particular case we have an isomorphic parameter which is exactly half
or smaller than the expectation dimension hni of our E Infinity space
 
lc 4 þ /3
k ¼ 6 ð hni=2Þ ¼ ð2:118033989Þ; where lc is the isomorphic length
q 2

for a radius q. The intuitive physical meaning of this theorem is that an observer living on the fractal Penrose tiling
need only to move a distance not longer than lc in order to perceive the world pattern (or quasi periodic tiling)
504 M.S. El Naschie / Chaos, Solitons and Fractals 22 (2004) 495–511

around him in a circle of the radius q as if he would not have moved at all. A related effect maybe noticed in a
related tiling namely, the compactified Klein modular curve in the Beltrame–Poincare projection [12]. In this case all
the different triangles seem to get logarithmically smaller and smaller as we move toward the circular edge. However,
an observer moving towards the edge will never ever reach it and only now and then he will feel as if he has never
moved at all because the ‘‘world’’ around him appears to be exactly the same as before moving. By contrast an
‘‘outside’’ observer will perceive the ‘‘inside’’ observer as getting smaller and slower all the time and never reaching
the edge [12].
All the preceding effects are a consequence of the very special geometry and topology of multi-dimensional quasi
periodic fractal and hyperbolic tiling of a compactified modular curve. We have conjectured in various previous
publications that quantum spacetime maybe modeled accurately by the aforementioned geometry and that the limit set
of such geometry may model the vacuum state which we call in E Infinity theory the vague attractor of Kolmogrov (The
VAK) [19].
The preceding conjecture has an important practical application which can be used advantageously in understanding
the mass spectrum of composite sub-nuclear particles and resonance and determining the magnitude of their masses by
extremely elementary means, once the exact mass of a single elementary particle such as the electron is somehow
determined. Let us give some elementary example to illustrate the idea. Suppose we have found in one way or another
the mass of the electron which is well known as me ¼ 0:511 MeV. Then using
a0 as a base scaling the exact mass of the
charged and neutral meson may be immediately found from the simple relation [20]
mp ¼ ð2
a0  1Þme ¼ ðkÞðme Þ ¼ 139:5868442 MeV

and
mp0 ¼ ð2
a0  10Þ ¼ ðkÞðme Þ ¼ 134:9878442 MeV

Here we used the theoretical E Infinity value for
a0 namely:

a0 ¼ ð1=/Þ4 ð20Þ ¼ 137 þ k0 ¼ 137 þ /5 ð1  /5 Þ ¼ 137:0820393

we note first that the experimental value of
a0 maybe found from the theoretical value via the following transformation
   
p p

a0 ðexperimentalÞ ¼ ð
a0  k0 Þ= cos ¼ 137= cos ¼ 137:0359852

a0 137 þ k0

We note that the so-obtained value for mp , mp0 are almost exactly equal to the experimentally found values.
In a similar fashion we may determine the mass of the neutron and proton and find first that
mN ¼ hmp iðkÞ ¼ hmp ið
a0 =20Þ MeV ¼ ð
a0 Þ2 =20 ¼ 939:574274

where hmp i ¼ 137 þ k0 MeV is defined as a ghost-like particle which we call the expectation meson and
a0 =20 ¼ k is a
scaling. Second the mass of the proton may be found in the spirit of Heisenberg isospin theory as a ‘‘rotation’’ of the
mass of the neutron as following [4]
mp ¼ mN cosðp=60Þ ¼ ðmN ÞðkÞ ¼ 938:286621 MeV

This is the same value found experimentally.

We note that the mass of the proton could be found from scaling the mass of the electron me as following [21–25]
pffiffiffiffiffi
mp ¼ ½ð
a0
ag Þ= 10ðme Þ ¼ ð1836:299336Þðme Þ ¼ 938:3489609 MeV

where

a0 ¼ 137 þ k0 and
ag ¼ ð10Þð hniÞ ¼ 42 þ 2k ’ 42

is the non-supersymmetric quantum gravity coupling constant found for instance by Crnjac [24]. Note that

a0
ag

k ¼ pffiffiffiffiffi ¼ b ¼ 1836:299336
10
is the value which according to Regge plays a profound role in our existence via the structure of our DNA [2] as
discussed in the first paragraph of the present work.
Turning now to the K meson which is well known for some unexpected behavior the mass maybe found via an
expectation k meson hmk i which is analogous to the expectation p meson hmp i using the simple scaling [4]:
 M.S. El Naschie / Chaos, Solitons and Fractals 22 (2004) 495–511 505

mk  þ mk 0
hmk i ¼ hmp ið3 þ /Þ ¼ hmp iðkÞ ¼ ð137 þ k0 Þð3:618033989Þ ¼ 496  k 2 ¼ 495:967477 ’
z
Surprisingly the mass of hmk i is equal to the E Infinity of the dimension of the exceptional Lee group E8  E8 which is
used in heterotic string theory when gauged in MeV. That means
hmk i ¼ DimE8  E8 jeð1Þ MeV ¼ ð496  k 2 Þ MeV ¼ 496  ½/3 ð1  /3 Þ2 ¼ 495:967477

The mass of the charged and neutral K meson are subsequently found simply as [4]
     
mk  2 493:967477 MeV
¼ hmk i þ ¼
mk 0 þ2 497:967477 MeV

The mass of the nucleon i.e. mN and mp maybe found approximately using hmk i ¼ 496 MeV via the following scaling
mN ’ mp ’ ð496ÞðkÞ ¼ ðDim E8  E8 Þðb
2 =D
ð10Þ
Þ ’ ð496Þð19=10Þ ’ 942 MeV

where b2 ¼ 19 is the dimension of a cohomology group involved in the Euler characteristic of the K€ahler surface k3 used
in the compactification of certain string theories and Dð10Þ ¼ 10 is the dimension of the string core of E Infinity space.
The accurate values maybe found form the above formula by including the so-called transfinite corrections and
finding that [4]
a0 Þ2 =20 MeV
mN ¼ ð496  k 2 Þð19  /6 Þ=10 ¼ 939:57427 MeV ¼ ð

exactly as before. Using rotational projection mp maybe found as explained earlier on.
Alternatively we may use the following scaling
mp ¼ ð496  4kÞð19  /6 Þ=10 ¼ 938:2693236 MeV

We could go on deriving, in similar fashion, nearly all the known composite particles and resonances, but the important
question now is how to decide on the scaling and whether all scaling are valid. In addition, we should explain why some
scaling, although valid scaling, are not observed experimentally [4,19–21].
The answer to the preceding question is first that not all scaling are valid and that these scaling must satisfy a
dimensional function similar to that given by Von Neumann in his continuous geometry [21] and by Conne in his
theory of non-commutative geometry [22]. In E Infinity theory all dimensions, coupling constants and their combi-
nation are valid scaling. However it is stability consideration, which decide upon the question of experimental
observability.
We have of course the KAM theorem that together with the basic conception of particles as vibrating nests of strings
relates the stability question to the sufficient irrationalities of the ratio and frequency of vibration of certain subsystems.
Such analysis based on the Eigen value theorem of Southwell and Dunkerely was undertaken in various papers by
Crnjac and the reader may be referred to these papers for detailed information [23–25].
The most important outstanding question however is how to determine the mass of non composite truly elementary
particles like the electron from first principle and without the elementary scaling argument which depends on knowing
the mass of another particle ab initio as given.
In order to explain how to do that we have to resort to unification arguments, certain dualities and instanton
consideration. In particular we could replace the Higgs mechanism for acquiring mass by an idea due to t’Hooft which
relates the so-called gravitational instanton to the Eguchi–Hanson meteric [26]. This we will discuss in the next par-
agraph.

8. Gravitational instanton and tunneling

The idea behind t’Hooft’s interpretation of gravitational instanton [1] leading to a formula for determining the mass
of the electron was discussed in three recent papers by the author when the said formula was also extended to include
many fundamental particles such as the axion, the Mx of grand unification and Mpl of total unification, i.e. including
gravity [27,30].
Let us attempt here an intuitive grasp of the idea and leave intricate mathematical details for the interested reader to
follow in the sighted literature [27–30].
Let us explain first the concept of instanton. This is a phenomena which may be likened to a window which appears
from nowhere in a wall, opens then closes again in an unimaginably short time and disappears altogether. Now the
506 M.S. El Naschie / Chaos, Solitons and Fractals 22 (2004) 495–511

opening of a window in a wall will cause many classically forbidden phenomena to take place such as passing through
the wall without resistance [29].
Such phenomenon is well known at low energy and is known as tunneling. This was utilized experimentally by an
ingenious German physicist Binnig in constructing the famous tunneling microscope for which he earned a Nobel Prize
in physics [30]. It seems however that such phenomena has contra parts in high energy physics by virtue of some wholly
unexpected dualities found by an Israeli–American mathematical physicist and Field Medallist Edward Witten [7,8].
Mathematically speaking instanton is a solitonic solution of quantum field theory in four dimensions. It is a gen-
eralization of the domain walls, vortices and t’Hooft–Polyakov monopoles in one, two and three dimensions respec-
tively. It is fair to say that the majority of theoretical physicists are nowadays satisfied by t’Hooft’s resolution of the
Uð1Þ problem of the standard model and accept the instanton solution as physically true. Likewise many leading
physicists accept t’Hooft’s explanation of quark confinement although the ‘tHooft–Polyakov monopoles have not been
found until this point of time experimentally.
The next step was taken again by t’Hooft who gave a new interpretation of a solitonic solution [27], this time in
general relativity, known as the Eguchi–Hanson solution. By transferring the Eguchi–Hanson metric from Einstein
spacetime to the Hilbert space of quantum gravity, t’Hooft gave the resulting so-called gravitational instanton a new
interpretation as a particle rather than, the usual interpretation as a tunneling event [27], However, if we recall the
viewpoint of Dirac’s sea and our E Infinity Holes theory we realize immediately that both conceptions as a particle and
as a tunneling are closely interrelated. In all events with E Infinity, tunneling and pair creations are the most natural
things to happen anyway [28–30].
In E Infinity we can have two points which seen from the ‘‘outside’’ would appear to be at a finite distance,
however, intrinsically the situation may be radically different. To illustrate the point, let us connect two points, one
using a cantor set and another using a Kuch curve. In the first curve we know that the Lebesgue measure is zero, so
that in this sense the distance between the two points is zero. In the second case however the formal length of the
Kuch curve is infinity so that the two points may be said to be an infinite distance apart. Using a mixer between fat
cantor sets and truncated Kuch curves we could say that the two points maybe any length apart between zero and
infinity [16,28,30].
If these fractal Cantorian distances are constructed randomly and if in infinite dimensions there are infinite con-
nections between the two points, then it is a matter of ‘‘fractal’’ statistics which path a traveling particle will find to be
shortest between two points in the E Infinity spacetime which we are alleging that it describes our physical spacetime
accurately on the relativistic as well as on the quantum scales.
It is via such argument that we arrive ultimately at the following mass formula [26–29]
!
2
a0
me ¼ pffiffiffi e
a0 p=4 =G
2

This may be generalized to [27–30]

Gm2 ¼ e
a=2

a¼

where
a could be any coupling constant for instance
aew p=2 and thus
Gm2 ¼ eð
aew p=4Þ

Finally using the classical instanton approximation to Feynmann path integral we find [29]
pffiffiffiffiffiffi
mðsÞ ¼ es =G

where S stands for entropy of a blackhole [30].

Let us set the numerical values of the quantities involved in the first formula namely,

a0 ’ 137:036

and
G ¼ ð6:70784Þð10Þ39 ð1=GeV2 Þ

Proceeding that way one finds that me could be expressed as follows [27]
pffiffiffiffiffiffi
me ’
ags =10 ’ 0:511667273 MeV

where
ags is the supersymmetric total unification coupling of E Infinity theory.

 M.S. El Naschie / Chaos, Solitons and Fractals 22 (2004) 495–511 507

Surprisingly, or maybe not so surprisingly, that is exactly the same formula found using the E Infinity unification
theorem in conjunction with the Montonen-olive duality [4].
We have also shown in previous publications how the experimental value of me could be found from the above by
projection [4,27]
 pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi  !
26 þ k p
me ðexperimentalÞ ¼ cos ¼ 0:511 MeV
10 ð/Þð10Þ2

The main importance of the preceding conclusions is that the proper way for determining the mass spectrum must be
via unification, i.e. the inclusion of general relativity in one way or another [24]. Once we have the mass of a funda-
mental ‘‘non-composite’’ lepton like the electron, then the rest is a simple scaling argument to construct the entire mass
spectrum of the standard model and beyond [20]. In fact we could use the quarks theory and fusion algebra to generate
similar conclusion as shown in previous publications [6,20].
We conclude this section by noting, that in view of the above, the standard model will surely stand almost fully intact
regardless of whether the illusive Higgs particles are found experimentally or not and that the alternative way shown in
the work of t’Hooft on gravitational instanton is sufficient to remedy the situation.

9. What is a particle?

The preceding introduction to E Infinity, which was largely informal, and had as the main objective elucidation
rather than formal derivation of concepts and mathematical formulas at heart, would not be as useful as we hope if we
could not explain after all that what a particle really is.
Surprisingly this is a question that has been mostly considered a part of epistemology rather than physics, something
we profoundly dispute. Unless we can associate with a mathematical theory some form of a ‘‘picture’’ in the sense of
‘‘Wittgenstein’’ then such a theory will amount to little more than an allegorism with the help of which certain numbers
are obtained and the human ‘‘spirit’’ will sink into incomprehensive resignation. This viewpoint was defended valiantly
by the late French mathematician and Field Medallist and inventor of Catastrophe theory Rene Thome [31]. In the
spirit of the above we write the following admittedly incomplete explanation for what a particle is.
I should also hasten to say that the majority of the following discussion follows ideas due to Prof. Martienssen who
is a leading experimental physicist with strong interest in mathematical and theoretical physics, working at the Uni-
versity of Frankfurt.
Spacetime as seen through the spectacles of E Infinity theory is simply a Cantorian dust described by three fun-
damental dimensions as explained in great detail by the present author in numerous publications. These dimensions are
the formal dimensions n equal infinity, the Hausdorff dimension which is equal to four plus the golden mean to the
power of three i.e. a slightly larger number than four and finally the topological dimension which turns out to be exactly
four. Incidentally, the preceding two dimensions are exact in a very particular way, namely they are exact expectation
values in the mathematical sense of the theory of probability.
However, we think it could be of considerable advantage for the application of the E Infinity theory at later stages to
dwell a little bit longer on the form of the Cantorian dust advanced by the author than is usually done in the literature
on the subject [4]. In the following I would like to ascribe to the Cantorian dust an additional ability or tendency to
aggregate, forming what may be described as lumps, to use a direct English translation to the terminology coined for the
first time by the German-American mathematician Karl Menger in a classical article which he dedicated to Albert
Einstein. I would like to imagine that the said Cantorian dust flocks together as if it were driven by invisible interaction
between the ‘‘individual’’ Cantorions which endows the lumps with the stability necessary for its formation.
One could think of the whole thing in a hierarchical manner in order to simplify the bewildering varieties of these
space time lumps. One could for instance attempt a topological classification using the most important topological
invariant of them all, namely the dimension. Thus we encounter a one dimensional-lump better known to theoretical
physicists as strings [7]. Two-dimensional lumps on the other hand would correspond to what we nowadays call
membranes [8]. We can go on climbing the hierarchy ladder because membranes may have an arbitrary higher
dimension. These are the lumps which correspond to what we call D-branes; a subject at the cutting edge of theoretical
research in super strings and related theories [8].
Since a cantor dust is obviously a collection of infinitely many points, the lumps are clearly the same and consist of
also infinitely many sets of points. In addition to this dimensional classification, we may classify these structures
according to the cardinality of the point sets involved in the lumps. We conjecture that such space time lumps will
manifest themselves physically as what we ordinarily call elementary particles.
508 M.S. El Naschie / Chaos, Solitons and Fractals 22 (2004) 495–511

The vacuum fluctuation of the Cantorian dust maybe restricted in this view to a translatory movement. By contrast
space time lumps may have internal vibration and also undergo, under certain conditions, rotations. The spectrum of
the Eigen oscillation of the lumps gives us an additional possibility for a finer classification and characterization. It is
expected that the highly complex form of the infinitely many lumps consisting of infinitely many point sets will produce
a correspondingly complex Eigen vibration spectrum which could be anything but a simple harmonic oscillation with
equi-distant energy levels. The irrational value of the ratios of the Eigen frequencies will play an important role
according to KAM theorem [25].
It is to be expected that such frequency ratios will decide on the stability of the lumps while the space time cantor
dust may have a comparatively higher degree of homogeneity and isotropy. In the case of the lumps, space time will
have a coarse structure at a higher degree of spacio-temperal resolution. In particular, the lumps change the homo-
geneity of the density of space time. It is thus this quasi-condensation of space time inside the lumps which we perceive
in our laboratory as the mass of elementary particles.
In fact, we could use a picture proposed, for the first time, by the inventor of transfinite sets himself, namely George
Cantor who claimed, in some of his less known scientific publications, that the cardinality of space time, in our case the
cardinality of the lumps, is what causes this qualitative difference between the outer space and the inner space of the
lump and gives the lump i.e. the elementary particle, its observed massiveness [32].
Said in different words and this is also in keeping with the general philosophy of Cantor, different cardinalities gives
different physics. This is of course a radical statement based on radical thinking giving pre-eminency to mathematics
over physics––If you want mind over body.
Now let us look at the preceding highly theoretical and maybe also a trifle philosophical picture from a diametrically
opposed point of view, namely that of an ardent experimental physicist.
In physics and speaking quite generally and also quite down to earth, our prime task is to describe natural
processes with the help of physical quantities using certain convenient rules with the aim of finding a quantitative
answer to precise questions posed, based on accepted physical laws. On close examination one notices that many
of the quantities that we use for this purpose are in reality interdependent and by no means independent of each
other.
Therefore, it was attempted from the very beginning of modern experimental physics to find out how many truly
from each other independent quantity one needs to describe qualitatively a natural process or a technical problem. Such
quantities are usually termed fundamental or base quantities. These fundamental quantities span a fictitious multi-
dimensional space with the help of which we then try to describe in the most economical way possible the said process
irrespective of its origin, whether it is natural or technical.
Similar to the search for the most suitable coordinate system for a particular problem, finding the base quantities is a
question of convenience, expediency maybe also taste. Meantime one could say with a high degree of confidence that
there is an international consensus that one needs in general at least four and occasionally five fundamental quantities
to describe a process exhaustively.
In other words, to build a physical model we need four- to five-dimensional coordinate space. Many physicists use
the following four coordinates for the aforementioned fictitious space: length, time, mass and electric current. As a fifth
coordinate they use temperature. There are many other specific examples all depending on the problem at hand and in
all these examples we end on average with a fictitious space, a little more than four-dimensional. To be precise, if we
include thermodynamics we end up with five, and if we excluded it we need only four-dimensions.
We stress that rather careful consideration revealed that all other quantities turned out to be derived and
non-fundamental quantities obtained using combinatorics. For instance, velocity is made up of length divided by
time.
In view of the above could we say that a fundamental space with a dimensionality between four and five is in effect a
confirmation of E Infinity theory. Does not the preceding consideration of a fictitious space used universally in
experimental physics de facto resonate one of the main results of E Infinity theory, namely that the Hausdorff
dimension of space time is a little bit larger than 4. We think at a minimum, it is quite tempting and in fact may turn out
to be useful, to see E Infinity theory in such light obtained from a most unlikely experimental quarter.

10. Quantum gravity, logarithmic scaling, E Infinity and connectivity dimension

In a previous work we have shown explicitly how to derive quantum gravity relations from descriptive set theory [4].
In this context we have shown the relevance of certain Polish spaces in particular the Cantor space [4]
C ¼ 2N
 M.S. El Naschie / Chaos, Solitons and Fractals 22 (2004) 495–511 509

and the Baire space [4]

B ¼ NN

In particular it has been shown that when interpreting 1=dcð0Þ in the bijection as the average h1=dcð0Þ i ¼ 2 of the fun-
damental Wisse–Abbot theorem and taking N ¼ 128 ¼
aew then the bijection formula
dcðnÞ ¼ ð1=dcð0Þ Þn1

gives for N ¼ n ¼
aew ¼ 128 and h1=dcð0Þ i ¼ 2

dcð128Þ ¼ ðh1=dcð0Þ iÞð1281Þ ¼ ð2Þð127Þ ’ ð1:7014118Þð10Þ38

where
aew ¼ 128 is the inverse coupling
a0 measured at the electroweak scale. In other words:
C2128 ¼ dcð128Þ ¼ 2N ’
aG ’ ð1:7Þð10Þ38

where
aG ’ ð1:7Þð10Þ38 is Newton non-dimensional gravity constant for an absurdly large quantum gravity coupling
aG ¼ 1 one finds that


pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
mpl ¼ 1=G ¼ ðGeV2 Þ=ð6:70784ð10Þ39 Þ ¼ ð1:49079Þð10Þ38 ¼ ð1:22098Þð10Þ19 GeV

where we set

h ¼ C ¼ 1

aG as given by C2128 is extremely close

which is the expected Planck mass. By comparison we see that the square root of

to the Planck mass when gauged in GeV
pffiffiffiffiffi pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
mpl ’
aG GeV ’ ð1:3043Þð10Þ19 GeV ’ 2
aew 1 GeV ’ C2128 GeV

This might seem as an unexpected connection between a very abstract subject, namely descriptive set theory and
physics. However on deeper reflection it is not. Set theory is the basis of all mathematics. On the other hand physics is
based on mathematics. It follows therefore as a trivial conclusion that physics is based on set theory [4,19,33].
We could gain another deep insight in the same direction by considering the following. We have seen in all the
preceding paragraphs the fundamental role of the golden mean scaling and the golden mean re-normalization. Next we
show that a second scaling, namely the logarithmic scaling will connect gravitational and non-gravitational forces in the
most fundamental equation of E Infinity namely the bijection formula. To do that we start by taking the logarithm of
both sides of the equation
ln dcð0Þ ¼ lnð1=dcð0Þ Þn1

That means
ln dcðnÞ ¼ ðn  1Þ lnð1=dcð0Þ Þ

solving for n one finds that

n ¼ ln dcðnÞ = lnð1=dcð0Þ Þ þ 1

setting 1=dcð0Þ ¼ 2 and dcðnÞ ¼ z where z is the partition function one finds
ln Z
n¼ þ1
ln 2
The above formula is capable of a highly interesting interpretation because ln Z maybe taken as measure of information
or an entropy S and ln z as a binary measure, so that we may call n a connectivity dimension.
In fact the above formula is very well-known indeed in Graph theory and is called the geometrical connectivity
dimension of a point set [4,30].
Now if we conceive of
aG as being the number of the expectation value of micro-state or the expectation value of the
partition function of the observable universe then the information dimension of the universe would be
ln
aG
D¼ þ 1 ¼ 128 ’
aew
ln 2
510 M.S. El Naschie / Chaos, Solitons and Fractals 22 (2004) 495–511

which happens to be the inverse of the Sommerfeld electromagnetic fine structure constant measure at the electro-weak
scale. The above value is in a fair agreement with the experimentally found value and reminds us of the P-Adic
expansion of
a0 ¼ 137 namely [4]
k137k2 ¼ ð2Þ7 þ ð2Þ3 þ ð2Þ6 ¼ 128 þ 8 þ 1 ¼ 137

The three last values would be the extreme and integer values of the three fundamental inverse couplings of the
electromagnetic force, the strong force and the quantum gravity coupling which formally must add together to 137

a0 ¼
aew þ
as þ
aQG ¼ 128 þ 8 þ 1

It should be noted that a
QG ¼ 1 is an absolutely theoretical value that is never attained and that the correct ‘‘real’’
pffiffiffiffiffi total unification ags ¼ 26 þ k. That is how the universe escapes
quantum gravity coupling is that of the supersymmetric

from being a black hole with a Planck mass mpl ¼
aG .
In addition we should note that the unification between gravitational and non-gravitational forces is linked to
aew ¼ 128 and not
a0 ’ 137 which sounds plausible and is the reason why in the Higgs theory we assume that the


massless particles acquire masses at the electro weak scale (
aew ffi 128).
In other words this point remains correct independent of whether we find the Higgs experimentally or not [3,30]. One
important conclusion from the above is that chaos may be used to inhance tunneling. This is an important practical
point which will be the subject of future publications.

11. Conclusion

The preceding informal introduction to E Infinity Theory had as its main objective an easily accessible and intuitive
grasp of the concepts used and the principal results obtained.
In particular we find that the best way to incorporate the mass spectrum in the standard model is to solve the
unification problem first. In addition, the conceptual framework of gravitational instanton was found to furnish E
Infinity theory with an alternative methodology to write down a fundamental mass formula from first principles.
We have shown how E Infinity theory can give a sound theoretical extension of Dirac’s vacuum theory to account
for a plethora of exotic particles of which the axion and the particles conjectured in Darmstadt–Frankfurt–Cairo and
Bristol, maybe just a few of many more. In general, the insight gained using E Infinity theory into the depth of the
disintegrating vacuum gives us the feeling that so far we have hardly scratched the top of the neutral vacuum and have
at best just seen the tip of an iceberg. Finally we could conclude that chaos and thus fractality of the local spacetime
may be used to enhance tunneling.

Acknowledgements

I am deeply indebted to Prof. Dr. Gerd Binnig for various extremely helpful discussions regarding many aspect of
E infinity theory. I am also very grateful to my colleague and teacher Prof. Dr. H.C. Werner Martienssen for many
suggestions and helpful comments. Finally I am very thankful to Prof. Dr. Walter Greiner for support in numerous
ways.

References

[1] t’Hooft G. Under the spell of gauge principle. Singapore: World Scientific; 2001.
[2] Regge T. Atti del convegno Mendeleeviano. Acad Del Sci de Torino 1971:398.
[3] Veltman JT. The Higgs Boson. Sci Am 1986;255(5):88–94.
[4] El Naschie MS. A review of E-infinity theory and the mass spectrum of high energy particle physics. Chaos, Solitons & Fractals
2004;19:209–36.
[5] El Naschie MS. Superstrings, knots and non-commutative geometry in E-infinity space. Int J Theor Phys 1998;37(12).
[6] El Naschie MS. On a class of general theories for high energy particle physics. Chaos, Solitons & Fractals 2002;14:649–68.
[7] Kaku M. Strings, confirmal fields and M theory. New York: Springer; 2000.
[8] Polchinski J. String theory I & II. Cambridge; 1998.
[9] Mandelbrodt. The fractal geometry of nature. New York: Freeman; 1983.
[10] Ord G, Mann RB. Entwined paths, difference equations and the Dirac equation. Phys Rev A 2003;67, 0121 XX 3.
 M.S. El Naschie / Chaos, Solitons and Fractals 22 (2004) 495–511 511

[11] El Naschie MS. A note on the differential form of eð1Þ space. Chaos, Solitons & Fractals 2000;11:837–9.
[12] El Naschie MS. Modular groups in Cantorian eð1Þ high energy physics. Chaos, Solitons & Fractals 2003;16:353–66.
[13] Greiner W, M€ uller B, Rafelski J. Quantum electrodynamics of strong fields. Berlin: Springer; 1985.
[14] El Naschie MS. VAK, vacuum fluctuation and the mass spectrum of high energy particle physics. Chaos, Solitons & Fractals
2003;17:797–807.
[15] Field M, Golubitsky M. Symmetry in chaos. Oxford University Press; 1992.
[16] El Naschie MS. On the possibility of two new elementary particles with mass equal mðkÞ ¼ 1:8033 MeV and mð
ags Þ ¼ 26:18033189
MeV. Chaos, Solitons & Fractals 2004;20:649–54.
[17] El Naschie MS. New elementary particles as a possible product of a disintegrating symplictic vacuum. Chaos, Solitons & Fractals
2004;20:905–13.
[18] El Naschie MS. Penrose universe and Cantorian spacetime as a model for non-commutative quantum geometry. Chaos, Solitons
& Fractals 1998;9(6):931–3.
[19] El Naschie MS. The VAK of vacuum fluctuation, spontaneous self-organization and complexity theory interpretation of high
energy particle physics and the mass problem. Chaos, Solitons & Fractals 2003;18:401–42.
[20] El Naschie MS. On the mass spectrum of quarks. Chaos, Solitons & Fractals 2002;14:369–76.
[21] Von Neumann. Continuous geometry. Princeton University Press; 1988. First published in 1960.
[22] Connes A. Non-commutative geometry. San Diego: Academic Press; 1994.
[23] Crnjac L. On the mass spectrum of elementary particles of the standard model using El Naschie’s golden field theory. Chaos,
Solitons & Fractals 2003;15:611–8.
[24] Crnjac L. On the unification of all fundamental forces in a fundamentally fuzzy Cantorian eð1Þ manifold and high energy particle
physics. Chaos, Solitons & Fractals 2004;20:669–82.
[25] Crnjac L. The mass spectrum of high energy elementary particles via El Naschie’s eð1Þ golden mean nested oscillators, the
Dunkerly-Southwell eigenvalue theorems and KAM. Chaos, Solitons & Fractals 2003;18:125–34.
[26] Eguchi T, Hanson A. Phys Lett 1978;74B:249.
[27] t’Hooft G. A physical interpretation of gravitational instantons. Nucl Phys B 1989;315:517–27.
[28] El Naschie MS. Gravitational instanton in Hilbert space and the mass of high energy elementary particles. Chaos, Solitons &
Fractals 2004;20:917.
[29] El Naschie MS. How gravitational instantons could solve the mass problem of the standard model of high energy particle physics.
Chaos, Solitons & Fractals 2004;20.
[30] El Naschie MS. Topological defects in the symplictic vacuum, anomalous positron production and gravitational instantons. Int J
Mod Phys, in press (2004).
[31] Arnold VI. Singularity theory (R. Thom Catastrophy Theory). London Math. Lec. Notes Series, vol. 53. London: Cambridge
University Press; 1981.
[32] Dauben JW. Georg Cantor. His mathematics and philosophy of the infinite. New Jersey: Princeton Press; 1979.
[33] Czajko J. On Cantorian spacetime over number systems with division by zero. Chaos, Solitons & Fractals 2004;21(2):261.