Wednesday, February 20, 2013

Still about non-planar twistor diagrams

A question about how non-planar Feynman diagrams could be represented in twistor Grassmannian approach inspired a re-reading of the recent article by recent article by Nima Arkani-Hamed et al.

This inspired the conjecture that non-planar twistor diagrams correspond to non-planar Feynman diagrams and a concrete proposal for realizing the earlier proposal that the contribution of non-planar diagrams could be calculated by transforming them to planar ones by using the procedure applied in knot theories to eliminate crossings by reducing the knot diagram with crossing to a combination of two diagrams for which the crossing is replaced with reconnection. The Wikipedia article about magnetic reconnection explains what reconnection means. More explicitly, the two reconnections for crossing line pair (AB,CD) correspond to the non-crossing line pairs (AD,BC) and (AC,BD).

I do not bother to type the 5 pages of text here. Instead I give a link to the article Still about non-planar twistor diagrams at my homepage. For background see the chapter Generalized Feynman Diagrams as Generalized Braids of "Towards M-matrix".

16 Comments:

At 9:36 AM, Blogger Ulla said...

Toward S-matrix does not function. I see you have updated the links on your blog, thanks.

 
At 6:58 PM, Anonymous Matti Pitkanen said...

To Ulla:

I checked the last link "Towards -matrix" and it worked.

 
At 3:38 AM, Blogger Ulla said...

There were also other that did not work, I tried several times, in some were errors in the adress.
not found:
http://tgdtheory.com/public_htmltgdquant/tgdquant.html

http://tgdtheory.com/public_html/index.html/tgdview/tgdview.html

http://tgdtheory.com/public_html/tgdnumber/ndnumber.html

http://tgdtheory.com/public_html/index.html/tgdclass/ntgddclass.html

Mond:
To calculate the velocity dispersion for each dwarf galaxy, the researchers utilized Modified Newtonian Dynamics, MOND for short, which is a hypothesis that attempts to resolve what appears to be an insufficient amount of mass in galaxies needed to support their orbital speeds.

MOND suggests that, under a certain condition, Newton’s law of gravity must be altered. That hypothesis is less widely accepted than the hypothesis that all galaxies contain unseen dark matter that provides needed mass.

“MOND comes out surprisingly well in this new test,” said Stacy McGaugh, astronomy professor at Case Western Reserve. “If we’re right about dark matter, this shouldn’t happen.”

McGaugh teamed with Mordehai Milgrom, the father of MOND and professor of physics and astrophysics at Weizmann Institute in Israel. Their study, “Andromeda Dwarfs in the Light of MOND” will be published in the Astrophysical Journal, and is posted on the electronic preprint archive http://arxiv.org/abs/1301.0822.

You have written about this in http://tgdtheory.com/public_html/tgdview/ntgdview2011.html#MondTGD

 
At 6:32 AM, Anonymous Matti Pitkanen said...


Thank you for telling about links. They should work now.

I have written about MOND. The model is one of the many completely ad hoc attempts to reproduce constant velocity spectrum of distant stars rotating around galaxy.

As I have explained many times, velocity spectrum can be understood elegantly by assuming that galaxies are like pearls around cosmic strings which carry huge magnetic energy identifiable as dark energy. The gravitational potential is logarithmic potential depending on radial distance from cosmic string and velocity spectrum comes out correctly. No need to modify gravitation at long distances. There are additional predictions which I have discussed several times.

This is one of the moments when I feel extremely frustrated about the stupidity of the average colleague. It is terribly sad that intelligent people are beating their heads against the wall year after year without learning anything.

I have developed a fantastic theory, which does not solve only this particular problem but a long list of other problems beginning from the genesis of matter to the identification of dark energy, explanation of accelerating cosmic expansion, and the mechanism leading to the formation of galaxies. And then I find it is completely impossible to communicate it to these fatheads. Arrogance transforms even the brightest fellow a complete idiot. Sorry that I do not sound positive but sometimes it is absolutely necessary to forget diplomatic gestures and to tell the truth.





 
At 11:41 AM, Blogger Ulla said...

I found a link http://aesop.phys.utk.edu/qft/2004-5/1-5.pdf that explained the conservation of Noether currents, in my op. Good?

Ye, let the pressure talk. Sometimes it is good too :) At least for the bloodpressure in the long run :)

 
At 1:14 PM, Blogger Ulla said...

A small intro to TGD. Say if it is no good. This is immensly complex, though I try to make it so simple I can. http://tgdlessons.blogspot.com/2013/02/problems-leading-to-tgd.html

 
At 12:46 AM, Anonymous matpitka@luukku.com said...


The article explaining Noether theorem is nice if one has basic knowledge about variational principles and the needed mathematics such as partial differential equations.

 
At 11:58 AM, Blogger Ulla said...

http://phys.org/news/2013-02-atoms-quantum-memory.html#.US-qnLBnDBA.facebook

 
At 10:00 AM, Blogger Ulla said...

A Long-Lived Relativistic Electron Storage Ring Embedded in Earth's Outer Van Allen Belt," by D.N. Baker, Science, 2013. www.sciencemag.org/content/early/2013/02/27/science.1233518.abstract

http://phys.org/news/2013-02-belt-earth-probes-reveal.html

 
At 10:19 AM, Blogger Ulla said...

http://www.youtube.com/user/NASAexplorer?v=tf2Ik5FT9w8
This is important?

 
At 2:25 PM, Blogger Ulla said...

http://johncarlosbaez.wordpress.com/2013/02/28/black-holes-and-the-golden-ratio/

 
At 5:10 PM, Blogger ThePeSla said...

Matti,

If I am not mistaken my recent color illustrations post this sort of consideration rather well... we all just have different terms and associations for the same extended physics concepts. But if we cannot see the links to each other how can it be seen by the rest of the world?

Our mind brains are transceivers in such twists and turns of higher braided and knotted spaces such as the p-adic. It uses the same theory of everything as a grounding law, and quantum theory is hardly adequate or for that matter the standard idea of strings.

Even then we should be looking for a little more than we have proposed.

Happy spring to all of you...

ThePeSla

 
At 5:22 AM, Blogger Ulla said...

http://phys.org/news/2013-03-decoherence-quantum.html
they found that the spin of an atom prior to being shot with a single photon determined whether decoherence took place or not.

When the photons struck the atoms, they were deflected, a process called scattering. In so doing, they discovered that if the photon struck an atom whose spin was not aligned in the same direction as its path, than the photon and atom became entangled—where two particles behave as if one, even at a distance. If the photon and atom's spin were aligned, however, entanglement did not occur.

 
At 2:19 PM, Blogger Rakesh Kumar said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 
At 10:35 PM, Blogger sunny kumar said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 
At 9:10 PM, Anonymous matti Pitkanen said...

To both Rakesh and Sunny Kumar,

please stop posting trash.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home