### Thursday, March 16, 2006

## the interesting history of Not Even Wrong

The idea of

" ... it is becoming increasingly clear by now that the new 'theory' does not predict anything. He has to introduce a 'super force' acting over long distances to achieve a consistent theory of gravitation. But we know already that apples fall towards the earth according to the standard model of Aristoteles, which is perfectly capable to explain all empirical evidence we have. On the other hand, we know that the moon and celestial bodies follow their circles ever since Ptolemeus introduced his geometric theory. It does not make sense to unify these two theories until we understand the fundamental issues much better.

One can easily see that the rules outlined in the Principia allow for more possible paths than just circles. Subsequently, Isaac gets lost in the 'landscape' of possible solar systems and makes hardly any firm new prediction in his book. It is very convenient that his friend Edward Halley has used the new 'framework' to forecast the return of a comet, but then made sure this event would not occur in our lifetime. This 'theory' is clearly

Meanwhile, I shall continue to meditate about the geometric nature of the circle, which is clearly an important principle guiding our universe. My good friend Lee Small, following related ideas, reported recently some interesting results about the nature of the triangle. I will have more to say about this later."

As you can see, I am following a great tradition of scientific debate.

*Not Even Wrong*is grounded in a long history of deep thinking. In 1701 the then famous P. Wont published a damning review of the*Principia*, published several years earlier:" ... it is becoming increasingly clear by now that the new 'theory' does not predict anything. He has to introduce a 'super force' acting over long distances to achieve a consistent theory of gravitation. But we know already that apples fall towards the earth according to the standard model of Aristoteles, which is perfectly capable to explain all empirical evidence we have. On the other hand, we know that the moon and celestial bodies follow their circles ever since Ptolemeus introduced his geometric theory. It does not make sense to unify these two theories until we understand the fundamental issues much better.

One can easily see that the rules outlined in the Principia allow for more possible paths than just circles. Subsequently, Isaac gets lost in the 'landscape' of possible solar systems and makes hardly any firm new prediction in his book. It is very convenient that his friend Edward Halley has used the new 'framework' to forecast the return of a comet, but then made sure this event would not occur in our lifetime. This 'theory' is clearly

*not even wrong*and I cannot understand why it attracts so much attention. Instead of wasting all resources on the new infinitesimal mathematics, our students should focus on a solid education in arithmetic instead.Meanwhile, I shall continue to meditate about the geometric nature of the circle, which is clearly an important principle guiding our universe. My good friend Lee Small, following related ideas, reported recently some interesting results about the nature of the triangle. I will have more to say about this later."

As you can see, I am following a great tradition of scientific debate.

### Wednesday, March 15, 2006

## Zen and the art of Not Even Wrong

This picture demonstrates how you can reach the enlightened state of

*Not Even Wrong*.

Unfortunately, I had a migraine when it was taken, but it could have been worse.

Once you reach the true state of

*Not Even Wrong*you should feel the power in all of your body, not just in your hand.

### Tuesday, March 14, 2006

## two posts later

I wrote two posts already, so perhaps this is a good moment for some reflections on what has been happening so far.

In many ways, this weblog has been successful far beyond my wildest dreams. My original expectation was that there would be a handful of people with similar interests who would regularly read it. I donâ€™t have completely accurate recent statistics, but it is fair to say that so far, nobody showed up. This is amazing. It indicates that people understand already that everything is

One of the main topics I will cover on this blog, and by far the most controversial, is the ongoing debate about string theory and its dominance of theoretical high energy physics. The public perception of string theory seems to me to have changed significantly recently.

I really cannot contribute anything substantial (I am working on my deep mathematical problems, remember that?) but it is important to notice that string theory is

In many ways, this weblog has been successful far beyond my wildest dreams. My original expectation was that there would be a handful of people with similar interests who would regularly read it. I donâ€™t have completely accurate recent statistics, but it is fair to say that so far, nobody showed up. This is amazing. It indicates that people understand already that everything is

*not even wrong*. Why read this blog, if you know it is*not even wrong*?One of the main topics I will cover on this blog, and by far the most controversial, is the ongoing debate about string theory and its dominance of theoretical high energy physics. The public perception of string theory seems to me to have changed significantly recently.

I really cannot contribute anything substantial (I am working on my deep mathematical problems, remember that?) but it is important to notice that string theory is

*I will have to say more about this in later posts.**not even wrong.*

**update**: Some well-known 'Net personalities really have too much time on their hands. But I'm honored!

## science is not even wrong

You know already that superstrings are not even wrong. But we need to take this deep thought to the next level. Of course, all of quantum gravity is

Now, you may ask yourself if I am qualified enough to make such statements. Does Peter Wait qualify as an "active researcher"? You can use Google to find my publications and I am currently working on an interesting mathematical problem (you have probably never heared about it, so why should I try to explain it?) and thus I am certainly qualified as an active researcher.

Of course, the scientific establishment does not want to hear my views and you will find no trackbacks from my blog on the arXiv. But this may change once more people understand that this blog is

*not even wrong*. Since the 1930s physicists are following a project which has led exactly nowhere (I will have much more to say about this). And I would go a step further and make the bold statement that physics and all of science is*not even wrong*. After all, there is still no convincing cure for boredom after so many centuries of failed efforts! But then came my blog and changed this, by stating the obvious...Now, you may ask yourself if I am qualified enough to make such statements. Does Peter Wait qualify as an "active researcher"? You can use Google to find my publications and I am currently working on an interesting mathematical problem (you have probably never heared about it, so why should I try to explain it?) and thus I am certainly qualified as an active researcher.

Of course, the scientific establishment does not want to hear my views and you will find no trackbacks from my blog on the arXiv. But this may change once more people understand that this blog is

*not even wrong - the next step*.## not even wrong 2

It is time to spread the news that almost all of what we do is

It is

*not even wrong*.It is

*not even wrong*to start this blog.