The canonical approach breaks reductionism and demonstrates why in the last two decades several communities (chemical, biological, etc.) abandoned all possibility of reduction to physics. As stated by J. van Brakel, “all more detailed investigations show that chemistry cannot be reduced to physics“.

String theory has been claimed to be the Final theory, the desired theory of everything (TOE). This is an exaggeration. String theory has failed like a TOE. Canonical science has been developed with an eye on the highest level of scientific research and, even in this elementary stage of research, canonical science can be used for showing why string and brane theories were in the wrong way.

Moreover, canonical science is in the cutting edge of many of the most recent research programs at hand. For example, the sophisticated Brussels School RHS theory for LPS can be generalized and corrected from canonical science. In the linear Markovian regime, we can derive and unify the semi-phenomenological theories developed in the last 50 years from at least six different communities: mathematical physicists, laser community, NMR physical chemists, astrophysicists, solid state physicists, and condensed matter chemical physicists! We also can generalize those useful approaches -like Caldeira & Legget or Redfield, between others- and show their limits of applicability.

In fact, Zubarev’s method -claimed to be one of most sophisticated approaches to irreversible quantum mechanics- would be seen as a simplified model of the canonical equation, whereas standard Lindblad axiomatic semigroup theory arises from canonical science at second order in the coupling constant and first order in time.

Most part of catalysis and absorption kinetics community is involved in a heated debate between the old approach (ART) and the new SRT. Recent reports published in the last few years suggest that SRT is the most sophisticated approach actually available and fits experimental data very well. Our canonical theory introduces new light in the topic. We can derive both ART and SRT like special cases valid in certain situations. What is more, we can generalize SRT introducing a new model, called CRT, which reduces to the successful SRT in close to equilibrium situations.

And what about QM? It is well known that QM is not a complete theory. From canonical science, we can generalize QM, and show why highly developed approaches like decoherence theory or the decoherent histories formalism both have failed in their attempt to solve the measurement problem. The most recent and “radical” approaches, for example, modification of Schrdinger equation adding new terms for explicit collapses also arise like special cases from canonical science.

Recent rigorous theoretical and experimental works show that usual field theoretic approach long ago stated by Faraday and Maxwell is not completely correct. For example, the authors of Phys. Rev. E 1996, 53(5), 5373-81 show that retarded fields cannot explain all of electromagnetic phenomena. This result is a revolution from the point of view of standard Maxwell electrodynamics and casts serious doubts on the mainstream beliefs in particle physics (where fields are considered primary concepts). However, this revolutionary outcome could be “predicted” (really postdicted by simple calendar questions) from canonical science. This is another success of our approach!

This 2005 is the year of physics, and Einstein theories are playing a predominant role in the celebration. That are not so publicized are the increasing doubts about the full validity of Einstein general theory of relativity. For example, experimental and theoretical works clearly suggests that gravitational interaction is not always delayed by c (light velocity). Unfortunately, even highly respected general relativists, like S. Carlip, are misguiding the point, and still confound retardation with scalar retardation, gravity interaction with gravitational waves, misread gauges… Recent work breaks the traditional Einstein approach, but astonishing is compatible with new approaches inspired in canonical gravitodynamics. Finally, after of much polemic, Carlip has agreed that instantaneous approaches to gravitation are consistent with experimental data on stellar aberration. Naturally, this is a first step in the reeducation of general relativists!

The perspective is promising. For instance, the traditional failure for explaining extragalactic phenomena from Einstein GR without ad hoc assumptions like the unobserved dark matter has obligated to doubt about Einstein theory (Phys. Rev. D 2004, 70(8), 0835091-28):

“[...]the correct relativistic gravitational theory may be of a kind not generally considered hitherto”

The research in gravitation is still preliminary one but it already permits us to derive, from first principles, departures of GR explaining extragalactic dynamics. Both MOND models and the successful Tully-Fisher law have a theoretical basis on canonical gravitodynamics. We can show their limits of applicability and, of course, generalize both.

Moreover, the first preliminary version of canonical gravitodynamics has been already quantized. This may be the first consistent approach to a satisfactory approach to gravitation explaining very recent experimental data; note that approaches like string theory or LQG just claim the possibility of quantization of standard GR. It is really interesting that the square of Planck length arises from our direct quantization of gravity whereas others, more “popular” attempts as string theory, just introduce Planck scale by hand in the equations.

For further data on canonical science and for learn more about this project, you can visit

Center for CANONICAL |SCIENCE)

and download some material from our preliminary web page.

Juan R. Gonzlez-lvarez.

Director and founder of the Center for CANONICAL |SCIENCE)