Saturday, October 26, 2013

Twistor Revolution in Physics


This is a short alert note! It looks like a new revolution in theoretical physics, involving Twistor concept, has been going on for some time. Spinor coordinates, Clifford Algebra and quantum states replacing the space-time and classical vector calculus. No longer are space and time the free coordinate variables of the quantum or classical equations of motion or of the curvature tensor (General Relativity - R.I.P.).   No space, no time, no singularities, no Feynman diagrams, no locality, no 26 dimensions ...

Roger Penrose on Twistors and Quantum Non-Locality,
Perimeter Institute, 2011

Roger Penrose - Twistor, Reality and Quantum Non Locality.
Summer School on the Foundations of Quantum Mechanics
dedicated to John Bell, Sesto Italy 28.07.2014

(Links Updated 6 May 2015)

More reading, more refs: Andrew Hodges review

For the most hardened, read this somewhat unreadable "Primer on Twistors" by Fedja Hadrovich.

Updated 30-Aug-2015.

- Did anyone notice that it looks like the Clifford-related stuff (see this or that primer) seems to have begun exploding in physics and mathematical physics in just the last few years!   It has shifted out of the fringe bin into the openly discussed theories.

Number 1 breakthrough is that it came up naturally in the context of calculating gluon-gluon amplitudes without using perturbation theory and infinite series approximation a la QM of the 1920-ties. (see above).

Number 2 - there seems to be a relation with Bell Theorem and Quantum Computing.   It looks like the following paper:
   "Does Geometric Algebra provide a loophole to Bell’s Theorem?" by Richard D. Gill
- has touched the issue of Bell Theorem paradoxes and certain effects involving quantum computation (already in an experimental stage) that seem to require the usage of Clifford formalism! 

The kicker is that many physicists have mistakenly assumed that the way forward beyond the Euclidean and  Newtonian physics of the 19-th Century was to curve the metrics!   Now the Nature herself is giving us some hints that it was either a step in the wrong direction or just grossly insufficient!  Curving the metrics, or making it (+,-,-,-) curved or not, or adding more dimensions a la string theory, does not fundamentally alter the structure of space-time and it still does not seem to fit very well to Quantum Mechanics!

I knew all along that something was wrong, ever since I graduated from physics in 1980.  The telltale sign for me was the sheer complexity of the apparatus and an inability to grasp it in one go by virtually anybody! (Those who claimed otherwise, I suspect were probably faking it) .  It is the "What The F..k" syndrome that made me doubt it.  I am sure ages ago in the antiquity, some scientists must have had the same sinking feeling looking at the Ptolemean Theory of Epicycles.   I wonder how is WTF in Latin?

Learn more and have fun.

Stan (Heretic)


Sam said...

(The site's name id Heretic so..."
This reminds me of something similar. I used to wander the stacks of the Univ. library looking for books by call number and ran across three books by Dewey B. Larson. He had/has a physics system kinda based on something like this. He was never a famous guy but his system made sense. One of the things that impressed me was he could explain the actions of molecules using the basic building blocks of his atomic system.

He also could using the same system explain white dwarf stars, gravity and all kinds of stuff. I read these 25 years ago or so so I don't remember all of it. Over the years I remember his system every now and then. I never seen any serious refutation of it. Of course few people know who he is so no one cares.

His system seemed to be able to make consistent rational prediction of matter from small atomic structure, to stars, to galaxy's without a lot of hand waving multidimensional nonsense.

There's a lot of errors in physics textbooks as Larson saw. Larson himself carries on one. The speed of light is a constant. It's not and the Michelson–Morley experiment DID find a difference between light going in the direction of earth and perpendicular to it's path.

Here's a link that talks about the importance of uncommitted investigators to find the truth.,%20Daniel%29.pdf

A Larson physics page.

Sam said...

Oops missed a paper by Larson. Here he talks about how we ought to be able to predict the nature of atoms and molecules.,%20Dewey%20B%29.pdf

Sam said...

OK I watched the video and I'm even more sure that what he's talking about is very similar to Larson theory. Larson goes much farther though. If I remember correctly Larson says matter comes from twist. Higher and higher mass numbers being made up of combinations of twist. All particles in motion but the twist slowing(?) the particles giving the essence/illusion of gravity. The impressive point being using twist to (additively add properties) we can understand the properties of atoms and molecules. He set out to use simple mathematics to describe nature. I'm not going to tell some of his conclusions because they're a bit mind boggling. However they do seem to account for weird elements that we find in telescopes. I'm not a mathematician but I understand complex numbers and penrose's graphs of multidimensional space don't confuse me(maybe a little). I grasp the (basic) mathematical ideas in Primrose's video but don't have the skills to manipulate the equations he shows. At 17:54 in the video the graph on the right seems very much what Larson describes. I do believe if you're interested in this sort of thing a look at Larsons work would be profitable. He doesn't use as much mathematics and in some ways this is easier and some ways it's harder because his ideas about the universe, while conforming to what we see and measure, are a bit confusing.

Stan (Heretic) said...

Hi Sam,

I looked at Larsons material but it does not seem to contain much math and theory, he seems to be only proposing some general idea. How can one use his ideas to calculate physical processes, mechanics, quantum amplitudes etc?

Sam said...

Sorry. Here's more.

Here's a basic overview without reading a lot.,%20Jameela%29.pdf

These guys have been working on it for a while. Fleshing out numbers. The start is VERY simple. The whole system is much less math oriented than what you're used to.




Astronomy. It just gets really bizarre here. Yet it does seem to show the universe as it is. One thing that interested me was he proposes a lifetime for all matter which eventually absorbs particles then explodes. This fits rather well with the asteroid belt and it place where bodes law says a planet should be.(If I remember correctly)

Space Time Units

Another thing that impressed me. I took physics but only Univ. 101 and 102. The single slit dual slit light experiment troubled me greatly. I thought and thought about it but could never could intuitively get my head around it. Yes I accept it but it's not the same as say an electric motor. Of course I'm not the only one. Dewey had an explanation for the two split experiment that made intuitive sense. Had to read it about 20 times but eventually I got it. Of course now I can't remember what it was or which book.

PDF Archive has more papers and books. Lot more nitty gritty.

Ahh. Found one of what I was looking for on the archive page.,%20Dewey%20B%29.pdf

Some of this theory has been added to after Dewey died.

Dewey may be wrong but it some ways I don't believe he's as wrong as some of what we have today. Yes a lot of stuff works but some seems ridiculous to me. Especially astronomical theories. The Sun for example being hotter on the outside than the inside. Please. As another weird aside with the new telescopes they have watching the Sun now people have been observing new stuff. One guy saw what appeared to be a large mass in a sunspot(like a mountain) that was there on the next pass almost exactly the same shape. He posits that it's slag like welding slag and the slag electrically isolates different areas of the Sun. When enough charge builds up it arcs, making the outside hotter.

Anyways I'm certainly not a physicist but I've read quite a few books on physics and a lot of it seems to be so much gibberish. They poke at things then jam a bunch of equations on a board to explain the interaction but there's no "understanding" that I can see. Of course I'm probably not be fit to judge. I'm an idiot but I'm not a complete idiot. Surely they can come up with something a little more descriptive than tensor equations.

I just thought of another illustration. (I'm afraid I'm getting nasty, please forgive me). Modern physics is like the Winchester house. The basic structure built on to and built on to. Stairwells that lead to nowhere.

Sam said...

Oops. I should gave posted this before the matter book. Unfortunately it's been many years since I've read these. In order.

Nothing But Motion- Volume I of the revised edition of the Structure of the Physical Universe,%20Dewey%20B).pdf

Basic Properties of Matter-Volume II of the revised edition of the Structure of the Physical Universe,%20Dewey%20B).pdf

Silliman said...

sam's comment under Astronomy mentions "One thing that interested me was he proposed a lifetime for all matter which eventually absorbs particles then explodes" This fits much better with Novas reather than asteroid belts. There is a small book that talks about this absorbation of particles for a billion years and then explodes: see "Gravity 3.0".