Foreward

21st December, 2010.
E-infinity communication No. 67
Foreward
In around 1930 Einstein wrote in an article published in the Journal of the Franklin Institute:
“ . . . it has been pointed out that the introduction of a space-time continuum may be considered
as contrary to nature in view of the molecular structure of everything which happens on a small
scale. It is maintained that perhaps the success of the Heisenberg method points to a purely
algebraic method of description of nature that is to the elimination of continuous functions from
physics. Then however, we must also give up, by principle the space-time continuum. It is not
unimaginable that human ingenuity will some day find methods which will make it possible to
proceed along such a path. At present time however, such a program looks like an attempt to
breath in empty space”.
I must say, seeing the present collection of articles on strings and quantum field theory, and
reading the preceding lines almost seventy years after Einstein first wrote them, it is becoming
evident to me that we have came a long way since then. We can no longer hide that we have
“almost” given up the continuum. Nevertheless we are not breathing in vacuum thanks to the
pioneering work of physicists like D. Bohm, A. Wheeler, R. Feynman, D. Finkelstein, R.
Penrose, E. Witten, L. Nottale and many others. These scientists have virtually revolutionized
our conventional notion of spacetime geometry. The task could not have been successful in
revolutionizing quantum physics if it would not have been for an equally vigorous and not less
revolutionary development on the “pure” side by mathematicians like G. Cantor, K. Menger, F.
Hausdorff, J. von Neumann, M. Atiyah, W. Thurston, V. Jones, S. Donaldson, M. Freedman
and A, Connes.

Finally, the unbelievable advances in the power of our electronic computational and experimental
capabilities have enabled us to make progress in fields where the mere mention of a real
experimental verification or computer simulation would have triggered the laughter of disbelieve
only three or four decades ago.

So it is not disrespectful that we are trying and have partially proven many of the giants of
quantum physics to be wrong on various occasions. Schrodinger was wrong to think that we
could not experiment with a single quantum particle. Heisenberg was wrong to think that
quantum particles have at best a reduced reality, and at worse there are no real particles at all.
We know now that elementary particles are different from classical objects, but they are very real
and can be captured and tamed. Finally even Feynman and other well-known names of theoretical
physics were wrong about superstrings. There are already reasonably realistic proposals for
indirect experimental verification of strings which could be carried out in the foreseeable future.

In the present volume most of the contributions are basically challenging many of Einstein’s
ideas about spacetime being a continuum something which was also taken for granted in classical
quantum physics. This is however the heart of Einsteinian thinking because he has always had
the courage and the foresight to challenge any conventional wisdom if he thought that there
ought to be a better way to describe nature. Famous names never worried Einstein. Following
this example I would like to gather my courage and state clearly that I believe that it is wrong to
think that micro spacetime has a fixed finite dimension.

In this sense the present volume is in the best tradition of Einstein’s thinking in more than one
sense and I would like to extend our thanks to all those who have contributed to this volume
and give our highest esteem to Prof. Carlos Castro on behalf of the Editorial Board for his
excellent effort in producing this issue. Particular words of thanks are also due to Prof. Sir R.
Penrose for contributing to the present volume, even though he was travelling abroad and under
enormous time pressure.

M.S. El Naschie
Cambridge 1998