Wednesday, February 22, 2017

Questions related to the quantum aspects of twistorialization

The progress in the understanding of the classical aspects of twistor lift of TGD makes possible to consider in detail the quantum aspects of twistorialization of TGD and for the first time an explicit proposal for the part of scattering diagrams assignable to fundamental fermions emerges.

  1. There are several notions of twistor. Twistor space for M4 is T(M4) =M4× S2 (see this) having projections to both M4 and to the standard twistor space T1(M4) often identified as CP3. T(M4)=M4× S2 is necessary for the twistor lift of space-time dynamics. CP2 gives the factor T(CP2)= SU(3)/U(1)× U(1) to the classical twistor space T(H). The quantal twistor space T(M8)= T1(M4)× T(CP2) assignable to momenta. The possible way out is M8-H duality relating the momentum space M8 (isomorphic to the tangent space H) and H by mapping space-time associative and co-associative surfaces in M8 to the surfaces which correspond to the base spaces of in H: they construction would reduce to holomorphy in complete analogy with the original idea of Penrose in the case of massless fields.

  2. The standard twistor approach has problems. Twistor Fourier transform reduces to ordinary Fourier transform only in signature (2,2) for Minkowski space: in this case twistor space is real RP3 but can be complexified to CP3. Otherwise the transform requires residue integral to define the transform (in fact, p-adically multiple residue calculus could provide a nice manner to define integrals and could make sense even at space-time level making possible to define action).

    Also the positive Grassmannian requires (2,2) signature. In M8-H relies on the existence of the decomposition M2⊂ M2= M2× E2⊂ M8. M2 could even depend on position but M2(x) should define an integrable distribution. There always exists a preferred M2, call it M20, where 8-momentum reduces to light-like M2 momentum. Hence one can apply 2-D variant of twistor approach. Now the signature is (1,1) and spinor basis can be chosen to be real! Twistor space is RP3 allowing complexification to CP3 if light-like complex momenta are allowed as classical TGD suggests!

  3. A further problem of the standard twistor approach is that in M4 twistor approach does not work for massive particles. In TGD all particles are massless in 8-D sense. In M8 M4-mass squared corresponds to transversal momentum squared coming from E4⊂ M4× E4 (from CP2 in H). In particular, Dirac action cannot contain anyo mass term since it would break chiral invariance.

    Furthermore, the ordinary twistor amplitudes are holomorphic functions of the helicity spinors λi and have no dependence on &lambda tile;i: no information about particle masses! Only the momentum conserving delta function gives the dependence on masses. These amplitudes would define as such the M4 parts of twistor amplitudes for particles massive in TGD sense. The simplest 4-fermion amplitude is unique.

Twistor approach gives excellent hopes about the construction of the scattering amplitudes in ZEO. The construction would split into two pieces corresponding to the orbital degrees of freedom in "world of classical worlds" (WCW) and to spin degrees of freedom in WCW: that is spinors, which correspond to second quantized induced spinor fields at space-time surface (actually string world sheets- either at fundamental level or for effective action implied by strong form of holography (SH)).
  1. At WCW level there is a perturbative functional integral over small deformations of the 3-surface to which space-time surface is associated. The strongest assumption is that this 3-surface corresponds to maximum for the real part of action and to a stationary phase for its imaginary part: minimal surface extremal of Kähler action would be in question. A more general but number theoretically problematic option is that an extremal for the sum of Kähler action and volume term is in question.

    By Kähler geometry of WCW the functional integral reduces to a sum over contributions from preferred extremals with the fermionic scattering amplitude multiplied by the ration Xi/X, where X=∑i Xi is the sum of the action exponentials for the maxima. The ratios of exponents are however number theoretically problematic.

    Number theoretical universality is satisfied if one assigns to each maximum independent zero energy states: with this assumption ∑ Xi reduces to single Xi and the dependence on action exponentials becomes trivial! ZEO allow this. The dependence on coupling parameters of the action essential for the discretized coupling constant evolution is only via boundary conditions at the ends of the space-time surface at the boundaries of CD.

    Quantum criticality of TGD demands that the sum over loops associated with the functional integral over WCW vanishes and strong form of holography (SH) suggests that the integral over 4-surfaces reduces to that over string world sheets and partonic 2-surfaces corresponding to preferred extremals for which the WCW coordinates parametrizing them belong to the extension of rationals defining the adele. Also the intersections of the real and various p-adic space-time surfaces belong to this extension.

  2. Second piece corresponds to the construction of twistor amplitude from fundamental 4-fermion amplitudes. The diagrams consists of networks of light-like orbits of partonic two surfaces, whose union with the 3-surfaces at the ends of CD is connected and defines a boundary condition for preferred extremals and at the same time the topological scattering diagram.

    Fermionic lines correspond to boundaries of string world sheets. Fermion scattering at partonic 2-surfaces at which 3 partonic orbits meet are analogs of 3-vertices in the sense of Feynman and fermions scatter classically. There is no local 4-vertex. This scattering is assumed to be described by simplest 4-fermion twistor diagram. These can be fused to form more complex diagrams. Fermionic lines runs along the partonic orbits defining the topological diagram.

  3. Number theoretic universality suggests that scattering amplitudes have interpretation as representations for computations. All space-time surfaces giving rise to the same computation wold be equivalent and tree diagrams corresponds to the simplest computation. If the action exponentials do not appear in the amplitudes as weights this could make sense but would require huge symmetry based on two moves. One could glide the 4-vertex at the end of internal fermion line along the fermion line so that one would eventually get the analog of self energy loop, which should allow snipping away. An argument is developed stating that this symmetry is possible if the preferred M20 for which 8-D momentum reduces to light-like M2-momentum having unique direction is same along entire fermion line, which can wander along the topological graph.

    The vanishing of topological loops would correspond to the closedness of the diagrams in what might be called BCFW homology. Boundary operation involves removal of BCFW bridge and entangled removal of fermion pair. The latter operation forces loops. There would be no BCFW bridges and entangled removal should give zero. Indeed, applied to the proposed four fermion vertex entangled removal forces it to correspond to forward scattering for which the proposed twistor amplitude vanishes.

To sum up, the twistorial approach leads to a proposal for an explicit construction of scattering amplitudes for the fundamental fermions. Bosons and fermions as elementary particles are bound states of fundamental fermions assignable to pairs of wormhole contacts carrying fundamental fermions at the throats. Clearly, this description is analogous to a quark level description of hadron. Yangian symmetry with multilocal generators is expected to crucial for the construction of the many-fermion states giving rise to elementary particles. The problems of the standard twistor approach find a nice solution in terms of M8-H duality, 8-D masslessness, and holomorphy of twistor amplitudes in λi and their indepence on &lambda tilde;i.

See the new chapter Some Questions Related to the Twistor Lift of TGD of "Towards M-matrix".

For a summary of earlier postings see Latest progress in TGD.

Articles and other material related to TGD.

Monday, February 13, 2017

A new view about color, color confinement, and twistors

To my humble opinion twistor approach to the scattering amplitudes is plagued by some mathematical problems. Whether this is only my personal problem is not clear (notice that this posting is a corrected version of earlier).

  1. As Witten shows, the twistor transform is problematic in signature (1,3) for Minkowski space since the the bi-spinor μ playing the role of momentum is complex. Instead of defining the twistor transform as ordinary Fourier integral, one must define it as a residue integral. In signature (2,2) for space-time the problem disappears since the spinors μ can be taken to be real.

  2. The twistor Grassmannian approach works also nicely for (2,2) signature, and one ends up with the notion of positive Grassmannians, which are real Grassmannian manifolds. Could it be that something is wrong with the ordinary view about twistorialization rather than only my understanding of it?

  3. For M4 the twistor space should be non-compact SU(2,2)/SU(2,1)× U(1) rather than CP3= SU(4)/SU(3)× U(1), which is taken to be. I do not know whether this is only about short-hand notation or a signal about a deeper problem.

  4. Twistorilizations does not force SUSY but strongly suggests it. The super-space formalism allows to treat all helicities at the same time and this is very elegant. This however forces Majorana spinors in M4 and breaks fermion number conservation in D=4. LHC does not support N=1 SUSY. Could the interpretation of SUSY be somehow wrong? TGD seems to allow broken SUSY but with separate conservation of baryon and lepton numbers.

In number theoretic vision something rather unexpected emerges and I will propose that this unexpected might allow to solve the above problems and even more, to understand color and even color confinement number theoretically. First of all, a new view about color degrees of freedom emerges at the level of M8.
  1. One can always find a decomposition M8=M20× E6 so that the complex light-like quaternionic 8-momentum restricts to M20. The preferred octonionic imaginary unit represent the direction of imaginary part of quaternionic 8-momentum. The action of G2 to this momentum is trivial. Number theoretic color disappears with this choice. For instance, this could take place for hadron but not for partons which have transversal momenta.

  2. One can consider also the situation in which one has localized the 8-momenta only to M4 =M20× E2. The distribution for the choices of E2 ⊂ M20× E2=M4 is a wave function in CP2. Octonionic SU(3) partial waves in the space CP2 for the choices for M20× E2 would correspond ot color partial waves in H. The same interpretation is also behind M8-H correspondence.

  3. The transversal quaternionic light-like momenta in E2⊂ M20× E2 give rise to a wave function in transversal momenta. Intriguingly, the partons in the quark model of hadrons have only precisely defined longitudinal momenta and only the size scale of transversal momenta can be specified.

    The introduction of twistor sphere of T(CP2) allows to describe electroweak charges and brings in CP2 helicity identifiable as em charge giving to the mass squared a contribution proportional to Qem2 so that one could understand electromagnetic mass splitting geometrically.

    The physically motivated assumption is that string world sheets at which the data determining the modes of induced spinor fields carry vanishing W fields and also vanishing generalized Kähler form J(M4) +J(CP2). Em charge is the only remaining electroweak degree of freedom. The identification as the helicity assignable to T(CP2) twistor sphere is natural.

  4. In general case the M2 component of momentum would be massive and mass would be equal to the mass assignable to the E6 degrees of freedom. One can however always find M20× E6 decomposition in which M2 momentum is light-like. The naive expectation is that the twistorialization in terms of M2 works only if M2 momentum is light-like, possibly in complex sense. This however allows only forward scattering: this is true for complex M2 momenta and even in M4 case.

    The twistorial 4-fermion scattering amplitude is however holomorphic in the helicity spinors λi and has no dependence on λtilde;i. Therefore carries no information about M2 mass! Could M2 momenta be allowed to be massive? If so, twistorialization might make sense for massive fermions!

M20 momentum deserves a separate discussion.
  1. A sharp localization of 8-momentum to M20 means vanishing E2 momentum so that the action of U(2) would becomes trivial: electroweak degree of freedom would simply disappear, which is not the same thing as having vanishing em charge (wave function in T(CP2) twistorial sphere S2 would be constant). Neither M20 localization nor localization to single M4 (localization in CP2) looks plausible physically - consider only the size scale of CP2. For the generic CP2 spinors this is impossible but covariantly constant right-handed neutrino spinor mode has no electro-weak quantum numbers: this would most naturally mean constant wave function in CP2 twistorial sphere.

    For the preferred extremals of twistor lift of TGD either M4 or CP2 twistor sphere can effectively collapse to a point. This would mean disappearence of the degrees of freedom associated with M4 helicity or electroweak quantum numbers.

  2. The localization to M4⊃ M20 is possible for the tangent space of quaternionic space-time surface in M8. This could correlate with the fact that neither leptonic nor quark-like induced spinors carry color as a spin like quantum number. Color would emerge only at the level of H and M8 as color partial waves in WCW and would require de-localization in the CP2 cm coordinate for partonic 2-surface. Note that also the integrable local decompositions M4= M2(x)× E2(x) suggested by the general solution ansätze for field equations are possible.

  3. Could it be possible to perform a measurement localization the state precisely in fixed M20 always so that the complex momentum is light-like but color degrees of freedom disappear? This does not mean that the state corresponds to color singlet wave function! Can one say that the measurement eliminating color degrees of freedom corresponds to color confinement. Note that the subsystems of the system need not be color singlets since their momenta need not be complex massless momenta in M20. Classically this makes sense in many-sheeted space-time. Colored states would be always partons in color singlet state.

  4. At the level of H also leptons carry color partial waves neutralized by Kac-Moody generators, and I have proposed that the pion like bound states of color octet excitations of leptons explain so called lepto-hadrons. Only right-handed covariantly constant neutrino is an exception as the only color singlet fermionic state carrying vanishing 4-momentum and living in all possible M20:s, and might have a special role as a generator of supersymmetry acting on states in all quaternionic subs-spaces M4.

  5. Actually, already p-adic mass calculations performed for more than two decades ago forced to seriously consider the possibility that particle momenta correspond to their projections o M20⊂ M4. This choice does not break Poincare invariance if one introduces moduli space for the choices of M20⊂ M4 and the selection of M20 could define quantization axis of energy and spin. If the tips of CD are fixed, they define a preferred time direction assignable to preferred octonionic real unit and the moduli space is just S2. The analog of twistor space at space-time level could be understood as T(M4)=M4× S2 and this one must assume since otherwise the induction of metric does not make sense.

What happens to the twistorialization at the level of M8 if one accepts that only M20 momentum is sharply defined?
  1. What happens to the conformal group SO(4,2) and its covering SU(2,2) when M4 is replaced with M20⊂ M8? Translations and special conformational transformation span both 2 dimensions, boosts and scalings define 1-D groups SO(1,1) and R respectively. Clearly, the group is 6-D group SO(2,2) as one might have guessed. Is this the conformal group acting at the level of M8 so that conformal symmetry would be broken? One can of course ask whether the 2-D conformal symmetry extends to conformal symmetries characterized by hyper-complex Virasoro algebra.

  2. Sigma matrices are by 2-dimensionality real (σ0 and σ3 - essentially representations of real and imaginary octonionic units) so that spinors can be chosen to be real. Reality is also crucial in signature (2,2), where standard twistor approach works nicely and leads to 3-D real twistor space.

    Now the twistor space is replaced with the real variant of SU(2,2)/SU(2,1)× U(1) equal to SO(2,2)/SO(2,1), which is 3-D projective space RP3 - the real variant of twistor space CP3, which leads to the notion of positive Grassmannian: whether the complex Grassmannian really allows the analog of positivity is not clear to me. For complex momenta predicted by TGD one can consider the complexification of this space to CP3 rather than SU(2,2)/SU(2,1)× U(1). For some reason the possible problems associated with the signature of SU(2,2)/SU(2,1)× U(1) are not discussed in literature and people talk always about CP3. Is there a real problem or is this indeed something totally trivial?

  3. SUSY is strongly suggested by the twistorial approach. The problem is that this requires Majorana spinors leading to a loss of fermion number conservation. If one has D=2 only effectively, the situation changes. Since spinors in M2 can be chosen to be real, one can have SUSY in this sense without loss of fermion number conservation! As proposed earlier, covariantly constant right-handed neutrino modes could generate the SUSY but it could be also possible to have SUSY generated by all fermionic helicity states. This SUSY would be however broken.

  4. The selection of M20 could correspond at space-time level to a localization of spinor modes to string world sheets. Could the condition that the modes of induced spinors at string world sheets are expressible using real spinor basis imply the localization? Whether this localization takes place at fundamental level or only for effective action being due to SH, is a question to be settled. The latter options looks more plausible.

To sum up, these observation suggest a profound re-evalution of the beliefs related to color degrees of freedom, to color confinement, and to what twistors really are.

For details see the new chapter Some Questions Related to the Twistor Lift of TGD of "Towards M-matrix" of "Towards M-matrix" or the article Some questions related to the twistor lift of TGD.

For a summary of earlier postings see Latest progress in TGD.

Articles and other material related to TGD.

Friday, February 10, 2017

How does the twistorialization at imbedding space level emerge?

One objection against twistorialization at imbedding space level is that M4-twistorialization requires 4-D conformal invariance and massless fields. In TGD one has towers of particle with massless particles as the lightest states. The intuitive expectation is that the resolution of the problem is that particles are massless in 8-D sense as also the modes of the imbedding space spinor fields are. M8-H duality indeed provides a solution of the problem. Massless quaternionic momentum in M8 can be for a suitable choice of decomposition M8= M4× E4 be reduce to massless M4 momentum and one can describe the information about 8-momentum using M4 twistor and CP2 twistor.

Second objection is that twistor Grassmann approach uses as twistor space the space T1(M4) =SU(2,2)/SU(2,1)× U(1) whereas the twistor lift of classical TGD uses T(M4)=M4× S2. The formulation of the twistor amplitudes in terms of strong form of holography (SH) using the data assignable to the 2-D surfaces - string world sheets and partonic 2-surfaces perhaps - identified as surfaces in T(M4)× T(CP2) requires the mapping of these twistor spaces to each other - the incidence relations of Penrose indeed realize this map.

For details see the new chapter Some Questions Related to the Twistor Lift of TGD of "Towards M-matrix" or the article Some questions related to the twistor lift of TGD.

For a summary of earlier postings see Latest progress in TGD.

Articles and other material related to TGD.

Wednesday, February 08, 2017

Twistor lift and the reduction of field equations and SH to holomorphy

It has become clear that twistorialization has very nice physical consequences. But what is the deep mathematical reason for twistorialization? Understanding this might allow to gain new insights about construction of scattering amplitudes with space-time surface serving as analogs of twistor diatrams.

Penrose's original motivation for twistorilization was to reduce field equations for massless fields to holomorphy conditions for their lifts to the twistor bundle. Very roughly, one can say that the value of massless field in space-time is determined by the values of the twistor lift of the field over the twistor sphere and helicity of the massless modes reduces to cohomology and the values of conformal weights of the field mode so that the description applies to all spins.

I want to find the general solution of field equations associated with the Kähler action lifted to 6-D Kähler action. Also one would like to understand strong form of holography (SH). In TGD fields in space-time are are replaced with the imbedding of space-time as 4-surface to H. Twistor lift imbeds the twistor space of the space-time surface as 6-surface into the product of twistor spaces of M4 and CP2. Following Penrose, these imbeddings should be holomorphic in some sense.

Twistor lift T(H) means that M4 and CP2 are replaced with their 6-D twistor spaces.

  1. If S2 for M4 has 2 time-like dimensions one has 3+3 dimensions, and one can speak about hyper-complex variants of holomorphic functions with time-like and space-like coordinate paired for all three hypercomplex coordinates. For the Minkowskian regions of the space-time surface X4 the situation is the same.

  2. For T(CP2) Euclidian signature of twistor sphere guarantees this and one has 3 complex coordinates corresponding to those of S2 and CP2. One can also now also pair two real coordinates of S2 with two coordinates of CP2 to get two complex coordinates. For the Euclidian regions of the space-time surface the situation is the same.
Consider now what the general solution could look like. Let us continue to use the shorthand notations S21= S2(X4); S22= S2(CP2);S23= S2(M4).
  1. Consider first solution of type (1,0) so that coordinates of S22 are constant. One has holomorphy in hypercomplex sense (light-like coordinate t-z and t+z correspond to hypercomplex coordinates).

    1. The general map T(X4) to T(M4) should be holomorphic in hyper-complex sense. S21 is in turn identified with S23 by isometry realized in real coordinates. This could be also seen as holomorphy but with different imaginary unit. One has analytical continuation of the map S21→ S23 to a holomorphic map. Holomorphy might allows to achieve this rather uniquely. The continued coordinates of S21 correspond to the coordinates assignable with the integrable surface defined by E2(x) for local M2(x)× E2(x) decomposition of the local tangent space of X4. Similar condition holds true for T(M4). This leaves only M2(x) as dynamical degrees of freedom. Therefore one has only one holomorphic function defined by 1-D data at the surface determined by the integrable distribution of M2(x) remains. The 1-D data could correspond to the boundary of the string world sheet.

    2. The general map T(X4) to T(CP2) cannot satisfy holomorphy in hyper-complex sense. One can however provide the integrable distribution of E2(x) with complex structure and map it holomorphically to CP2. The map is defined by 1-D data.

    3. Altogether, 2-D data determine the map determining space-time surface. These two 1-D data correspond to 2-D data given at string world sheet: one would have SH.

  2. What about solutions of type (0,1) making sense in Euclidian region of space-time? One has ordinary holomorphy in CP2 sector.

    1. The simplest picture is a direct translation of that for Minkowskian regions. The map S21→ S22 is an isometry regarded as an identification of real coordinates but could be also regarded as holomorphy with different imaginary unit. The real coordinates can be analytically continued to complex coordinates on both sides, and their imaginary parts define coordinates for a distribution of transversal Euclidian spaces E22(x) on X4 side and E2(x) on M4 side. This leaves 1-D data.

    2. What about the map to T(M4)? It is possible to map the integrable distribution E22(x) to the corresponding distribution for T(M4) holomorphically in the ordinary sense of the word. One has 1-D data. Altogether one has 2-D data and SH and partonic 2-surfaces could carry these data. One has SH again.

  3. The above construction works also for the solutions of type (1,1), which might make sense in Euclidian regions of space-time. It is however essential that the spheres S22 and S23 have real coordinates.

SH thus would thus emerge automatically from the twistor lift and holomorphy in the proposed sense.
  1. Two possible complex units appear in the process. This suggests a connection with quaternion analytic functions suggested as an alternative manner to solve the field equations. Space-time surface as associative (quaterionic) or co-associate (co-quaternionic) surface is a further solution ansatz.

    Also the integrable decompositions M2(x)× E2(x) resp. E21(x)× E22(x) for Minkowskian resp. Euclidian space-time regions are highly suggestive and would correspond to a foliation by string wold sheets and partonic 2-surfaces. This expectation conforms with the number theoretically motivated conjectures.

  2. The foliation gives good hopes that the action indeed reduces to an effective action consisting of an area term plus topological magnetic flux term for a suitably chosen stringy 2-surfaces and partonic 2-surfaces. One should understand whether one must choose the string world sheets to be Lagrangian surfaces for the Kähler form including also M4 term. Minimal surface condition could select the Lagrangian string world sheet, which should also carry vanishing classical W fields in order that spinors modes can be eigenstates of em charge.

    The points representing intersections of string world sheets with partonic 2-surfaces defining punctures would represent positions of fermions at partonic 2-surfaces at the boundaries of CD and these positions should be able to vary. Should one allow also non-Lagrangian string world sheets or does the space-time surface depend on the choice of the punctures carrying fermion number (quantum classical correspondence)?

  3. The alternative option is that any choice produces of the preferred 2-surfaces produces the same scattering amplitudes. Does this mean that the string world sheet area is a constant for the foliation - perhaps too strong a condition - or could the topological flux term compensate for the change of the area?

    The selection of string world sheets and partonic 2-surfaces could indeed be also only a gauge choice. I have considered this option earlier and proposed that it reduces to a symmetry identifiable as U(1) gauge symmetry for Kähler function of WCW allowing addition to it of a real part of complex function of WCW complex coordinates to Kähler action. The additional term in the Kähler action would compensate for the change if string world sheet action in SH. For complex Kähler action it could mean the addition of the entire complex function.

For details see the new chapter Some Questions Related to the Twistor Lift of TGD of "Towards M-matrix" or the article Some questions related to the twistor lift of TGD.

For a summary of earlier postings see Latest progress in TGD.

Articles and other material related to TGD.

Tuesday, February 07, 2017

Mystery: How Was Ancient Mars Warm Enough for Liquid Water?

The article Mars Mystery: How Was Ancient Red Planet Warm Enough for Liquid Water? tells about a mystery related to the ancient presence of water at the surface of Mars. It is now known that the surface of Mars was once covered with rivers, streams, ponds, lakes and perhaps even seas and oceans. This forces to consider the possibility there was once also life in Mars and might be still. There is however a problem. The atmosphere probably contained hundreds of times less carbon dioxide than needed to keep it warm enought for liquid water to last. There are how these signature of flowing water there. Here is one more mystery to resolve.

I proposed around 2014 TGD version of Expanding Earth Hypothesis stating that Earth has experienced a geologically fast expansion period in its past. The radius of the Earth's space-time sheet would have increased by a factor of two from its earlier value. Either p-adic length scale or heff/h=n for the space-time sheet of Earth or both would have increased by factor 2.

This violent event led to the burst of underground seas of Earth to the surface with the consequence that the rather highly developed lifeforms evolved in these reservoirs shielded from cosmic rays and UV radiation burst to the surface: the outcome was what is known as Cambrian explosion. This apparent popping of advanced lifeforms out of nowhere explains why the earlier less developed forms of these complex organisms have not been found as fossile. I have discussed the model for how life could have evolved in underground water reservoirs here.

The geologically fast weakening of the gravitational force by factor 1/4 at surface explains the emergence of gigantic life forms like sauri and even ciant crabs. Continents were formed: before this the crust was like the surface of Mars now. The original motivation of EEH indeed was that the observation that the continents of recent Earth seem to fit nicely together if the radius were smaller by factor 1/2. This is just a step further than Wegener went at his time. The model explains many other difficult to understand facts and forces to give up the Snowball Earth model. The recent view about Earth before Cambrian Explosion is very different from that provided by EEH. The period of rotation of Earth was 4 times shorter than now - 6 hours - and this would be visible of physiology of organisms of that time. Whether it could have left remnants to the physiology and behavior of recently living organisms is an interesting question.

What about Mars? Mars now is very similar to Earth before expansion. The radius is one half of Earth now and therefore same as the radius of Earth before the Cambrian Explosion! Mars is near Earth so that its distance from Sun is not very different. Could also recent Mars contain complex life forms in water reservoirs in its interior. Could Mother Mars (or perhaps Martina, if the red planet is not the masculine warrior but pregnant mother) give rise to their birth? The water that has appeared at the surface of Mars could have been a temporarily leakage. An interesting question is whether the appearance of water might correspond to the same event that increased the radius of Earth by factor two.

Magnetism is important for life in TGD based quantum biology. A possible problem is posed by the very weak recent value of the magnetic field of Mars. The value of the dark magnetic field Bend of Earth deduced from the findings of Blackman about effects of ELF em fields on vertebrate brain has strength, which is 2/5 of the nominal value of BE. Hence the dark MBs of living organisms perhaps integrating to dark MB of Earth seem to be entities distinct from MB of Earth. Could also Mars have dark magnetic fields?

Schumann resonances might be important for collective aspects of consciousness. In the simplest model for Schumann resonances the frequencies are determined solely by the radius of Mars and would be 2 times those in Earth now. The frequency of the lowest Schumann resonance would be 15.6 Hz.

For background see the chapters Expanding Earth Model and Pre-Cambrian Evolution of Continents, Climate, and Life and More Precise TGD Based View about Quantum Biology and Prebiotic Evolution of "Genes and Memes" .

For a summary of earlier postings see Latest progress in TGD.

Articles and other material related to TGD.

Monday, February 06, 2017

Chemical qualia as number theoretical qualia?

Certain FB discussions led to a realization that chemical senses (perception of odours and tastes) might actually be or at least include number theoretical sensory qualia providing information about the distribution of Planck constants heff/h=n identifiable as the order of Galois group for the extension of rationals characterizing adeles.

See the article Chemical qualia as number theoretical qualia?.

For a summary of earlier postings see Latest progress in TGD.

Articles and other material related to TGD.

Thursday, February 02, 2017

Anomaly in neutron lifetime as evidence for the transformation of protons to dark protons

I found a popular article about very interesting finding related to neutron lifetime (see this). Neutron lifetime turns out tobe by about 8 seconds shorter, when measured by looking what fraction of neutrons disappears via decays in box than by measuring the number of protons produced in beta decays for a neutron beam travelling through a given volume. The life time of neutron is about 15 minutes so that relative lifetime difference is about 8/15×60 ≈ .8 per cent. The statistical signficance is 4 sigma: 5 sigma is accepted as the significance for a finding acceptable as discovery.

How could one explain the finding? The difference between the methods is that the beam experiment measures only the disappearences of neutrons via beta decays producing protons whereas box measurement detects the outcome from all possible decay modes. The experiment suggests two alternative explanations.

  1. Neutron has some other decay mode or modes, which are not detected in the box method since one measures the number of neutrons in initial and final state. For instance, in TGD framework one could think that the neutrons can transform to dark neutrons with some rate. But it is extremely unprobable that the rate could be just about 1 per cent of the decay rate. Why not 1 millionth? Beta decay must be involved with the process.

    Could some fraction of neutrons decay to dark proton, electron, and neutrino: this mode would not be detected in beam experiment? No, if one takes seriously the basic assumption that particles with different value of heff/h= n do not appear in the same vertex. Neutron should first transform to dark proton but then also the disappearance could take place also without the beta decay of dark proton and the discrepancy would be much larger.

  2. The proton produced in the ordinary beta decay of proton can however transform to dark proton not detected in the beam experiment! This would automatically predict that the rate is some reasonable fraction of the beta decay rate.
    About 1 percent of the resulting protons would transform to dark protons. This makes sense!
What is so nice is that the transformation of protons to dark protons is indeed the basic mechanism of TGD inspired quantum biology! For instance, it would occur in Pollack effect in with irradiation of water bounded by gel phase generates so called exclusion zone, which is negatively charged. TGD explanation is that some fraction of protons transforms to dark protons at magnetic flux tubes outside the system. Negative charge of DNA and cell could be due to this mechanism. One also ends up to a model of genetic code with the analogs of DNA, RNA, tRNA and amino-acids represented as triplets of dark protons. The model predicts correctly the numbers of DNAs coding given amino-acid. Besides biology the model has applications to cold fusion, and various free energy phenomena.

See the article Two different lifetimes for neutron as evidence for dark protons and chapter New Particle Physics Predicted by TGD: Part I.

For a summary of earlier postings see Latest progress in TGD.

Articles and other material related to TGD.

Why metabolism and what happens in bio-catalysis?

TGD view about dark matter gives also a strong grasp to metabolism and bio-catalysis - the key elements of biology.

Why metabolic energy is needed?

The simplest and at the same time most difficult question that innocent student can make about biology class is simple: "Why we must eat?". Or using more physics oriented language: "Why we must get metabolic energy?". The answer of the teacher might be that we do not eat to get energy but to get order. The stuff that we eat contains ordered energy: we eat order. But order in standard physics is lack of entropy, lack of disorder. Student could get nosy and argue that excretion produces the same outcome as eating but is not enough to survive.

We could go to a deeper level and ask why metabolic energy is needed in biochemistry. Suppose we do this in TGD Universe with dark matter identified as phases characterized by heff/h=n.

  1. Why metabolic energy would be needed? Intuitive answer is that evolution requires it and that evolution corresponds to the increase of n=heff/h. To see the answer to the question, notice that the energy scale for the bound states of an atom is proportional to 1/h2 and for dark atom to 1/heff2 ∝ n2 (do not confuse this n with the integer n labelling the states of hydrogen atom!).

  2. Dark atoms have smaller binding energies and their creation by a phase transition increasing the value of n demands a feed of energy - metabolic energy! If the metabolic energy feed stops, n is gradually reduced. System gets tired, loses consciousness, and eventually dies. Also in case of cyclotron energies the positive cyclotron energy is proportional to heff so that metabolic energy is needed to generate larger heff and prerequisites for negentropy. In this case one would have very long range negentropic entanglement (NE) whereas dark atoms would correspond to short range NE corresponding to a lower evolutionary level. These entanglements would correspond to gravitational and electromagnetic quantum criticality.

    What is remarkable that the scale of atomic binding energies decreases with n only in dimension D=3. In other dimensions it increases and in D=4 one cannot even speak of bound states! This can be easily found by a study of Schrödinger equation for the analog of hydrogen atom in various dimensions. Life based on metabolism seems to make sense only in spatial dimension D=3. Note however that there are also other quantum states than atomic states with different dependence of energy on heff.

  3. The analogy of weak form of NMP following from mere adelic physics makes it analogous to second law. Could one consider the purely formal generalization of dE=TdS-.. to dE= -TdN-... where E refers to metabolic energy and N refers to entanglement negentropy? No!: the situation is different. The system is not closed system; N is not the negative of thermodynamical entropy S; and E is the metabolic energy feeded to the system, not the system's internal energy. dE= TdN - ... might however make sense for a system to which metabolic energy is feeded.

    Note that the identification of N is still open: N could be identified as N= ∑pNp -S where one has sum of p-adic entanglement negentropies and real entanglement entropy S or as N = ∑pNp. For the first option one would have N=0 for rational entanglement and N>0. for extensions of rationals. Could rational entanglement be interpreted as that associated with dead matter?

  4. Bio-catalysis and ATP→ ADP$ process need not require metabolic energy. A transfer of negentropy from nutrients to ATP to acceptor molecule would be in question. Metabolic energy would be needed to reload ADP with negentropy to give ATP by using ATP synthase as a mitochondrial power plant. Metabolites could be carriers of dark atoms of this kind possibly carrying also NE. They could also carry NE associated with the dark cyclotron states as suggested earlier and in this case the value of heff=hgr would be much larger than in the case of dark atoms.

Conditions on bio-catalysis

Bio-catalysis is key mechanism of biology and its extreme efficacy remains to be understood. Enzymes are proteins and ribozymes RNA sequences acting as biocatalysts.

What does catalysis demand?

  1. Catalyst and reactants must find each other. How this could happen is very difficult to understand in standard biochemistry in which living matter is seen as soup of biomolecules. I have already already considered the mechanisms making it possible for the reactants to find each other. For instance, in the translation of mRNA to protein tRNA molecules must find their way to mRNA at ribosome. The proposal is that reconnection allowing U-shaped magnetic flux tubes to reconnect to a pair of flux tube connecting mRNA and tRNA molecule and reduction of the value of heff=n× h inducing reduction of the length of magnetic flux tube takes care of this step. This applies also to DNA transcription and DNA replication and bio-chemical reactions in general.

  2. Catalyst must provide energy for the reactants (their number is typically two) to overcome the potential wall making the reaction rate very slow for energies around thermal energy. The TGD based model for the hydrino atom having larger binding energy than hydrogen atom claimed by Randell Mills suggests a solution. Some hydrogen atom in catalyst goes from (dark) hydrogen atom state to hydrino state (state with smaller heff/h and liberates the excess binding energy kicking the either reactant over the potential wall so that reaction can process. After the reaction the catalyst returns to the normal state and absorbs the binding energy.

  3. In the reaction volume catalyst and reactants must be guided to correct places. The simplest model of catalysis relies on lock-and-key mechanism. The generalized Chladni mechanism forcing the reactants to a two-dimensional closed nodal surface is a natural candidate to consider. There are also additional conditions. For instance, the reactants must have correct orientation. For instance, the reactants must have correct orientation and this could be forced by the interaction with the em field of ME involved with Chladni mechanism.

  4. One must have also a coherence of chemical reactions meaning that the reaction can occur in a large volume - say in different cell interiors - simultaneously. Here MB would induce the coherence by using MEs. Chladni mechanism might explain this if there is there is interference of forces caused by periodic standing waves themselves represented as pairs of MEs.

Phase transition reducing the value of heff/h=n as a basic step in bio-catalysis

Hydrogen atom allows also large heff/h=n variants with n>6 with the scale of energy spectrum behaving as (6/n)2 if the n=4 holds true for visible matter. The reduction of n as the flux tube contracts would reduce n and liberate binding energy, which could be used to promote the catalysis.

The notion of high energy phosphate bond is somewhat mysterious concept. There are claims that there is no such bond. I have spent considerable amount of time to ponder this problem. Could phosphate contain (dark) hydrogen atom able to go to the a state with a smaller value of heff/h and liberate the excess binding energy? Could the phosphorylation of acceptor molecule transfer this dark atom associated with the phosphate of ATP to the acceptor molecule? Could the mysterious high energy phosphate bond correspond to the dark atom state. Metabolic energy would be needed to transform ADP to ATP and would generate dark atom.

Could solar light kick atoms into dark states and in this manner store metabolic energy? Could nutrients carry these dark atoms? Could this energy be liberated as the dark atoms return to ordinary states and be used to drive protons against potential gradient through ATP synthase analogous to a turbine of a power plant transforming ADP to ATP and reproducing the dark atom and thus the "high energy phosphate bond" in ATP? Can one see metabolism as transfer of dark atoms? Could possible negentropic entanglement disappear and emerge again after ADP→ATP.

Here it is essential that the energies of the hydrogen atom depend on hbareff=n× h in as hbareffm, m=-2<0. Hydrogen atoms in dimension D have Coulomb potential behaving as 1/rD-2 from Gauss law and the Schrödinger equation predicts for D≠ 4 that the energies satisfy En∝ (heff/h)m, m=2+4/(D-4). For D=4 the formula breaks since in this case the dependence on hbar is not given by power law. m is negative only for D=3 and one has m=-2. There D=3 would be unique dimension in allowing the hydrino-like states making possible bio-catalysis and life in the proposed scenario.

It is also essential that the flux tubes are radial flux tubes in the Coulomb field of charged particle. This makes sense in many-sheeted space-time: electrons would be associated with a pair formed by flux tube and 3-D atom so that only part of electric flux would interact with the electron touching both space-time sheets. This would give the analog of Schrödinger equation in Coulomb potential restricted to the interior of the flux tube. The dimensional analysis for the 1-D Schrödinger equation with Coulomb potential would give also in this case 1/n2 dependence. Same applies to states localized to 2-D sheets with charged ion in the center. This kind of states bring in mind Rydberg states of ordinary atom with large value of n.

The condition that the dark binding energy is above the thermal energy gives a condition on the value of heff/h=n as n≤ 32. The size scale of the dark largest allowed dark atom would be about 100 nm, 10 times the thickness of the cell membrane.

For details see the chapter Quantum criticality and dark matter.

For a summary of earlier postings see Latest progress in TGD.

Articles and other material related to TGD.

Wednesday, February 01, 2017

Further details related to the induction of twistor structure

The notion of twistor lift of TGD (see this and this) has turned out to have powerful implications concerning the understanding of the relationship of TGD to general relativity. The meaning of the twistor lift really has remained somewhat obscure. There are several questions to be answered. What does one mean with twistor space? What does the induction of twistor structure of H=M4× CP2 to that of space-time surface realized as its twistor space mean?

In TGD one replaces imbedding space H=M4× CP2 with the product T= T(M4)× T(CP2) of their 6-D twistor spaces, and calls T(H) the twistor space of H. For CP2 the twistor space is the flag manifold T(CP2)=SU(3)/U(1)× U(1) consisting of all possible choices of quantization axis of color isospin and hypercharge.

  1. The basic idea is to generalize Penrose's twistor program by lifting the dynamics of space-time surfaces as preferred extremals of Kähler action to those of 6-D Kähler action in twistor space T(H). The conjecture is that field equations reduce to the condition that the twistor structure of space-time surface as 4-manifold is the twistor structure induced from T(H).

    Induction requires that dimensional reduction occurs effectively eliminating twistor fiber S2 (X4) from the dynamics. Space-time surfaces would be preferred extremals of 4-D Kähler action plus volume term having interpretation in terms of cosmological constant. Twistor lift would be more than an mere alternative formulation of TGD.

  2. The reduction would take place as follows. The 6-D twistor space T(X4) has S2 as fiber and can be expressed locally as a Cartesian product of 4-D region of space-time and of S2. The signature of the induced metric of S2 should be space-like or time-like depending on whether the space-time region is Euclidian or Minkowskian. This suggests that the twistor sphere of M4 is time-like as also standard picture suggests.

  3. Twistor structure of space-time surface is induced to the allowed 6-D surfaces of T(H), which as twistor spaces T(X4) must have fiber space structure with S2 as fiber and space-time surface X4 as base. The Kähler form of T(H) expressible as a direct sum

    J(T(H)= J(T(M4))⊕ J(T(CP2)

    induces as its projection the analog of Kähler form in the region of T(X4) considered.

    There are physical motivations (CP breaking, matter antimatter symmetry, the well-definedness of em charge) to consider the possibility that also M4 has a non-trivial symplectic/Kähler form of M4 obtained as a generalization of ordinary symplectic/Kähler form (see this). This requires the decomposition M4=M2× E2 such that M2 has hypercomplex structure and E2 complex structures.

    This decomposition might be even local with the tangent spaces M2(x) and E2(x) integrating to locally orthogonal 2-surfaces. These decomposition would define what I have called Hamilton-Jacobi structure (see this). This would give rise to a moduli space of M4 Kähler forms allowing besides covariantly constant self-dual Kähler forms with decomposition (m0,m3) and (m1, m2) also more general self-dual closed Kähler forms assignable to integrable local decompositions. One example is spherically symmetric stationary self-dual Kähler form corresponding to the decomposition (m0,rM) and (θ,φ) suggested by the need to get spherically symmetric minimal surface solutions of field equations. Also the decomposition of Robertson-Walker coordinates to (a,r) and (θ,π) assignable to light-cone M4+ can be considered.

    The moduli space giving rise to the decomposition of WCW to sectors would be finite-dimensional if the integrable 2-surfaces defined by the decompositions correspond to orbits of subgroups of the isometry group of M4 or CD. This would allow planes of M4, and radial half-planes and spheres of M4 in spherical Minkowski coordinates and of M4+ in Robertson-Walker coordinates. These decomposition could relate to the choices of measured quantum numbers inducing symmetry breaking to the subgroups in question. These choices would chose a sector of WCW (see this) and would define quantum counterpart for a choice of quantization axes as distinct from ordinary state function reduction with chosen quantization axes.

  4. The induced Kähler form of S2 fiber of T(X4) is assumed to reduce to the sum of the induced Kähler forms from S2 fibers of T(M4) and T(CP2). This requires that the projections of the Kähler forms of M4 and CP2 to S2(X4) are trivial. Also the induced metric is assumed to be direct sum and similar conditions holds true.These conditions are analogous to those occurring in dimensional reduction.

    Denote the radii of the spheres associated with M4 and CP2 as RP=klP and R and the ratio RP/R by ε. Both the Kähler form and metric are proportional to Rp2 resp. R2 and satisfy the defining condition JkrgrsJsl= -gkl. This condition is assumed to be true also for the induced Kähler form of J(S2(X4).

This is the general description. How many solutions to these conditions are obtained? It seems that there are essentiablly 3 solutions. The projection of the twistor space of space-time surface to the twistor sphere of either M4 or CP2 is trivial and the solution in which it is trivial to both and twistor spheres correspond to each other by a one-to-one isometry (see this).

For details see the chapter How the hierarchy of Planck constants might relate to the almost vacuum degeneracy for twistor lift of TGD? or the article Some questions related to the twistor lift of TGD.

For a summary of earlier postings see Latest progress in TGD.

Articles and other material related to TGD.