[Juan R.]

Hi,

I am Juan. I am developing an advanced formulation of nature that I called canonical science.

It reduced theories of physics, chemistry, ecology, etc to a single theory very advanced.

This is not a string theory!! In fact, string theory is little developed when compared with this research.

I am preparing both research papers and educative viewpoints in the topic.

In my webpage (www.canonicalscience.com) you can find lot of data, links, etc. on this new revolutionary theory.

I am open to solve question or doubts.

[AntonioLao]

Juan,

Does your canonical science relate to any of the following sites?

http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/phys...lMomentum.html

http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/phys...lEnsemble.html

http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/phys...formation.html

for the life of me, I still don't understand what the word "canonical" means?

[Juan R.]

Hi,

No nobody of those links are i am doing. Still I can derive that from my theory. for example equilbrium ensembles like the canonical ensemble are derived like theorems in my theory, whereas just postulated, a priori, in statistical mechanics, classical or quantum one.

Canonical science is the application of canonical theory. Canonical become from greek canon.

Canon signifies a general unique rule. In this case, it signifies a general rule that is applied "elsewhere". By this reason, i think that is the first serious attemt to a "TOE".

[Guille]

Hi Juan R, o deberia decir hola?

I'm interested in your theory.

Until very little time ago I was a pro-string-theory, but it happened to fail to the expectations it created to me when I read The Elegant Universe, which was basically that it would be a TOE very soon, but it seems it doesn't advance so much and even worse that it's not clear what it is supposed to stand for.

I hope your theory is a much better attempt than string theory.

I went to the web you gave but it seems to be starting or in work either than finished. Do you know more or less when it will be finished? will you include ALL the thoery in the web? if not, dcan you send me by e-mail a paper wit the theory?

Thanks for all,

Guillermo

[Juan R.]

"Hi" is best for this open forum

I was a pro-string-theory when i read grandiloquent claims in popular magazines, Hawking books, etc. but when I obtained the papers and study the mathematical detailes i discovered that the theory was a waste of time. It does not work, even if some day the compatification was achieved by a kind of miracle, then string theorists has just a simple unelegant formulation of the basic properties of standard model and Einstein GR. Only that elementary stuff!!

I said in my criticism to the Elegant Universe that string theorists have a very wrong conception of nature and that string theory was basically wrong even in its more basics elements. Many people was skeptic and some even attack to me with personal mails. This year i wrote a new review of the book (basically now people agree with me)


**************************************************

The book is well written, but is a work devoted to fiction. I carefully recommend the purchase of this beautiful book, since it will be an excellent "piece of collection" about a 20th century wrong project by an almost arrogant team (Seiberg has admitted, "Most string theorists are very arrogant.").

I reviewed this book on 2003 (please see "The violin is out of tune and the TOE is a TON"); then the initial ratio of votes was only of a 5-10% on favor of it. During these years, a number of persons contacted with me. The most fascinating case being a mathematician interested on string theory (SMT) that claimed that my previous review "would" be wrong even when he had not studied SMT still!

He dubbed about several of my affirmations and I thought on it carefully. How many readers as him still think that book says is correct? How many people are misinformed about the scientific status of SMT?

I am amazing that the own string theorists begin to broadly accept many of my previous, initially critiqued, claims. By a question of space this review is limited to some relevant topics.

String theorist Siegel recognizes: "the net result is that known string theories have little or no predictive power. They are thus less a `Theory of Everything' [TOE] than a `Theory of Nothing' [TON]." According to Woit, a 2005 review article by string theorist Giddings does not even pretend that the theory will ever make a real prediction about anything!

During decades, string theorists claimed for imminent first evidence for SMT. I remember the dozens of metaphysical claims for "stringy" supersymmetry and others exotic things... all that stuff never discovered again and again in accelerators. Then they looked for an elegant cosmological verification. Some string theorists exaggerated: "Astronomers prove string theory". More credible string-brane theorists as Joe Polchinski did not think so. On a recent meeting, cosmologist L. Krauss called SMT "a colossal failure".

These days, string theorist Susskind promotes the "Landscape", or the failure of prediction due to perhaps 10500 (the exact number is not known) vacuum states. I said, "10500" >> 18 >1, i.e. the unpopular idea of that SMT does not unify all on a single parameter. Susskind adds: "More and more as time goes on, the opponents of the idea admit that they are simply in a state of depression and desperation."

I said that SMT was not a scientific hypothesis. Now they agree: "physicists may have to rethink what it means for a theory to explain experimental data". It sound somewhat as given that SMT does not agree with basic underpinnings of scientific method, we would change the method for adapting it to our nonscientific "Credo" (recently named "kind of a church" by string leader Jim Gates)! Of course, this is nonsense and experimental physicists just smile.

Many string theorists have arrogantly ignored, furiously attacked (e.g. during decades claimed that LQG was wrong), or misunderstood other interesting approaches to quantum gravity. Recently we saw to Witten (the "Einstein of strings") working on twistor theory, to string theorist Vafa proposing that perhaps LQG was a part of SMT, etc. Brian Greene goes more far, and recognized on 2004 that LQG had advanced much. Now he is claiming that perhaps theoreticians from both sides would join and work on a future mixture of LQG and SMT!

On 2004, Glanz interviewed to Witten, who took the opportunity to announce that he had changed his mind about whether SMT will ever be a TOE. I simply read, "When Glanz contacted other string theorists and read to them what Witten had said, almost all of them told him that they too had been having their doubts about the theory."

It appears that Glanz's article have had dramatic effects at many universities and research institutes: canceling of lectures on SMT, halt publication of new undergraduate textbook on the topic; canceling of post-docs, summer programs, and conferences, etc.

On last Aspen celebration, also Brian Greene seemed open to the increasing idea that SMT may be wrong...

According to Greene, when we know the fundamental equations of physics, everything else, chemistry, biology, neurology, psychology, and so on, can be reduced to physics and explained by using the equations. The Nobel Prize for physics Phil Anderson brilliantly demolished that archaic point of view years ago. Moreover, Anderson critiqued string theory as a futile exercise as physics on a January News.

Freeman Dyson (Nobel Prize for physics) did a strong criticism on Greene's last book (The Fabric of Cosmos). Dyson agrees with my early review on that "stringy reinterpretation" of quantum mechanics is not serious (in fact, the understanding of string theorists is wrong on technical details).

As said two years ago, the book describes (very incorrectly!) our fascinating universe. Moreover, any scientific link with reality is lost. E.g. does SMT offer any explanation of why there are apparently three space dimensions larger than the rest? See Greene's "poetic explaining" and compare with Witten's reply to an interview after publication of The Elegant Universe: "That's a big problem that has to be explained. As of now, string theorists have no explanation of why there are three large dimensions as well as time, and the other dimensions are microscopic."

I wrote that SMT was very traditional and straightforward when compared with other advanced scientific theories and hypothesis on use. Some avid readers of string propaganda remained perplexed. Does SMT constitute a revolution in physics? Unfortunately, string theorists have just a superficial knowledge of some others disciplines! On a recent interview, David Gross (Nobel Prize for physics 2004), particle physicist and one of the leading lights of SMT, replied: "But we still haven't made a very radical break with conventional physics. We've replaced particles with strings-that in a sense is the most revolutionary aspect of the theory. But all of the other concepts of physics have been left untouched-a safe thing to do if you're making changes."

A chronic ignorant

*************************************************

My last information is that a very recent research has demonstrated that ther is none posibility for obtain some predictive from string theory, just lots of unuseful math and very wrong elementary stuff.

In fact, from canonical theory one can demonstrate that "ultra-advanced" non-critical version of string theory is a waste of time. Moreover it use just Lindblad operators for the introduction of spacetime foam contributions. My theory is more realistic and introduces for exmaple nonmarkovian terms.

String theory is a waste of time. My theory is much better because explain lots of experimental data and use mathematical formalism very, very advanced. The famous Schwartz action for the superstring is a 1/3 of the complexity of this new theory.

I would say you that I think that TOE does not exist. One newer can explain really everything, only lots of things in the best.

Yes, the final page work only with last XML clean code. i think that there is no many clean code pages in the Internet. IE fails to render adequately pages and, morever, one cannot see equations because there is no native support for MathML islands.

The data of presentation of new web page is available at the top of the site. All theory will be included in the web and archaic publication in peer-review journals ignored. This theory is so good that cannot be published in the old format. That format is very good for a string theory but canonical science is a interdisciplinary view from particle phsicis to comsology, passing by chemistry and ecology.

See my project with Shagaev (link in the last part of the site).

Thanks to you!!!!

[dleviwing]

Juan;
I agree with your assessment of "SMT". I think SMT and Canonical Science seem to have a lot in common.
Regards;
dleviwing

[AntonioLao]

Juan,

Thanks for your reply to post#2. I'll try to compare your theory to my own independent research on spacetime quantization.

[Guille]

Juan,

Thanks for the long-but-interesting post 5, which tells many things I didn't know.

Good luck with your theory (although really it isn't about luck),

Guillermo

[Juan R.]

Since that I wrote my review on Brian Greene "Elegant universe" years ago, and updated it this year (March 3, 2005), and even after i wrote my posterior nontechnical paper (April 19, 2005)

see www.canonicalscience.com

about why string theory has failed like a TOE (or even like a theory of particle physics or quantum gravity) there are interesting news in the field.

Each month there is new evidence of that anti-string theorists were correct and string theorists were wrong. Many people suspect that 2005 will be the end of string program.

I do not follow string theory research since that i discover that the theory was wrong and a waste of time. But i follow news. Here a recent news

May 18, 2005

Game Over

Shamit Kachru (described by Lenny Susskind as the "master Rube Goldberg architect") and collaborators have a new paper out this evening on flux compactifications, one that in a rational world should finish off the subject completely. Recall that Kachru is one of the K's responsible for the KKLT construction of these flux compactifications that stabilize all moduli, and for the last couple years debate has raged over whether this sort of construction gives 10100, 10500 or even 101000 possible string theory vacuum states.

Susskind, Arkani-Hamed, and other anthropic principle aficionados have argued that the fact that this number is at least 10100 is a great triumph because it means that there are so many vacua that at least some will have small enough cosmological constant to be consistent with our existence. But if there are too many, all hope of getting predictions out of string theory disappears. With 101000 vacua, you can find not only the cosmological constant you want, but probably any values of anything particle experimentalists have ever measured or ever will measure, and the theory becomes completely unpredictive.

Even so, the study of these vacua has become more and more popular over the last year or two, with many arguing that, no matter how big the number is, at least it's finite, so you have improved over the standard model, which has continuously tunable parameters. This argument was made in the panel discussion at the Perimeter Institute a month or so ago. Also, a finite number of vacua allows you to study their statistics, by assigning a weight one to each possible vacuum state and getting a probability measure by dividing by the total number. You can then engage in wishful thinking that this probability measure will be peaked about certain values, giving a sort of prediction.

The new paper gives a construction of flux compactifications of type IIA string theory, and in this case the authors find an infinite number of possibilities. This should kill off any hopes of extracting predictions from string theory by counting vacua and doing statistics. The authors try and put a brave face on what has happened, writing:

"we should emphasize that the divergence of the number of SUSY vacua may not be particularly disastrous. A mild cut on the acceptable volume of the extra dimensions will render the number of vacua finite."

but then they go on to puncture their own argument by noting that:

"one can legitimately worry that the conclusions of any statistical argument will be dominated by the precise choice of the cut-off criterion, since the regulated distribution is dominated by vacua with volumes close to the cut-off."

With this new result, the infinitesimally small remaining hope of getting predictions out of the string theory landscape framework has now vanished. It will be interesting to see if this slows down at all the ever-increasing number of string theorists working in this field.