I am skeptic of the true existence of a TOE. However, since we are interested in the study of a part of spectra of scientific knowledge, I would ask if canonical science is an “TOE” for almost practical purposes.
After of so many delays -due to external impediments- I have already launched the canonical science project. The last impediment has been so stupid like follow. I ordered a website for the Center, payed the hosting with a check and mail service “lost” the check. Since there is an minimum 31 days interval previous to any reclamation. I was obliged to wait before reclaim my check. Once reclaimed it took another pair of weeks for waiting the official reply. Finally, I ordered the website in another place.
Canonical science is a new, very advanced, scientific theory that embraces physics, chemistry, biology, etc.
you can now obtain the last hot news on canonical science and the Center. Since previous canonical science forum was forced to close, I have opened a blog where I will post the last advances in research and education and comments on each new article published in our new advanced journal Can. Sci. Rep.
I think that many chemists will be uninterested in parts of canonical science regarding quantum gravity, particle physics, string theory, cosmology, ecology, or nonlinear economy, between others. I believe that chemical community (I was a physical chemist but now I call myself canonical scientist) will be interested just in the chemical physics or physical chemistry branches of canonical science.Some notes on this.
Physical chemistry is completely outdated. This is the reason that specialists on other similar disciplines (physicists, biophysicists, etc.) often reject chemical literature. There are two approaches to “chemical physics” questions: the approach by theoretical chemists, and the rest.
I am sorry to say this but the approach by chemists is frequently outdated (this was one of causes I did not continue on my physical chemistry dept. on University).
For instance, recently (2002) a group of physical chemists (from Australia) did a sound paper on thermodynamics. The content and basic ideas are compatible with standard chemical literature (e.g. Levine manual on physical chemistry) but completely wrong. Many comments by specialists (physicists and me) were published elsewhere and chemical community, unfortunately, ridiculed.
Some years ago, Nobel laureate for physics P.W. Anderson did a joke on highly respected journal Science. He said that if you asked to a chemist what is ammonia molecule he/she would say you the wrong answer. Then I was an undergraduate student and was furious with this public “vexation”. However, he was almost correct; even today I take a recent manual on inorganic chemistry and it still maintains that ammonia <b> is</b> a pyramidal molecule, which is not true. If ammonia were a pyramidal molecule always, then physicists newer would develop the ammonia maser. Ammonia is a pyramidal molecule, but also is a planar structure. Both structures coexist.
I read an advanced manual on density matrix theory and the author recommended, without rubber, that you would no use chemical literature on the topic (e.g. Pilar quantum chemistry manual) because was full of flaws, for instance completely incorrect definitions of density matrices for electronic structure.
The most advanced and exciting advanced in adsorption kinetics was done by... a group of physicists some years ago. Chemists like the old ART approach (that appears in basic courses of physical chemistry), which is based in traditional outdated ideas about chemical reactions, and rudely critiqued the new SRT. Almost all of criticism was shown to be incorrect and today, in specialized chemical journals like Langmuir, people begins, slowly, to recognize that SRT is the best approach to kinetics with the old ART like an “unconvincing” method (often the fit of experimental data introduces unphysical behaviors like negative activation energies, etc.).
If you have any question regarding canonical chemistry view on physical chemistry topics, you can post it in this physical chemistry forum and I attempted to solve for you. Note that standard questions that can be solved from usual physical chemistry literature (e.g. what is the relationship between Cv and Cp for a nonideal gas) and/or from other members of this community would be not adequate. I think that all questions are interesting; simply I have no time due to my new responsibilities on the Center for CANONICAL |SCIENCE), the canonical project and the blog, Canonical Science Reports, and my collaboration with electrochemist Shagaev on modification of the model of scientific publication.