Summary about twistorialization in TGD framework

Since the contribution means in well-defined sense a breakthrough in the understanding of TGD counterparts of scattering amplitudes, it is useful to summarize the basic results deduced above as a polished answer to a Facebook question.

There are two diagrammatics: Feynman diagrammatics and twistor diagrammatics.

1. Virtual state is an auxiliary mathematical notion related to Feynman diagrammatics coding for the perturbation theory. Virtual particles in Feynman diagrammatics are off-mass-shell.
   
   
2. In standard twistor diagrammatics one obtains counterparts of loop diagrams. Loops are replaced with diagrams in which particles in general have complex four-momenta, which however light-like: on-mass-shell in this sense. BCFW recursion formula provides a powerful tool to calculate the loop corrections recursively.
   
   
3. Grassmannian approach in which Grassmannians Gr(k,n) consisting of k-planes in n-D space are in a central role, gives additional insights to the calculation and hints about the possible interpretation.
   
   
4. There are two problems. The twistor counterparts of non-planar diagrams are not yet understood and physical particles are not massless in 4-D sense.
   
   

In TGD framework twistor approach generalizes.

1. Massless particles in 8-D sense can be massive in 4-D sense so that one can describe also massive particles. If loop diagrams are not present, also the problems produced by non-planarity disappear.
   
   
2. There are no loop diagrams- radiative corrections vanish. ZEO does not allow to define them and they would spoil the number theoretical vision, which allows only scattering amplitudes, which are rational functions of data about external particles. Coupling constant evolution - something very real - is now discrete and dictated to a high degree by number theoretical constraints.
   
   
3. This is nice but in conflict with unitarity if momenta are 4-D. But momenta are 8-D in M⁸ picture (and satisfy quaternionicity as an additional constraint) and the problem disappears! There is single pole at zero mass but in 8-D sense and also many-particle states have vanishing mass in 8-D sense: this gives all the cuts in 4-D mass squared for all many-particle state. For many-particle states not satisfying this condition scattering rates vanish: these states do not exist in any operational sense! This is certainly the most significant new discovery in the recent contribution.
   

   BCFW recursion formula for the calculation of amplitudes trivializes and one obtains only tree diagrams. No recursion is needed. A finite number of steps are needed for the calculation and these steps are well-understood at least in 4-D case - even I might be able to calculate them in Grassmannian approach!
   
   

4. To calculate the amplitudes one must be able to explicitly formulate the twistorialization in 8-D case for amplitudes. I have made explicit proposals but have no clear understanding yet. In fact, BCFW makes sense also in higher dimensions unlike Grassmannian approach and it might be that the one can calculate the tree diagrams in TGD framework using 8-D BCFW at M⁸ level and then transform the results to M⁴× CP₂.
   
   

What I said above does yet contain anything about Grassmannians.

1. The mysterious Grassmannians Gr(k,n) might have a beautiful interpretation in TGD: they could correspond at M⁸ level to reduced WCWs which is a highly natural notion at M⁴× CP₂ level obtained by fixing the numbers of external particles in diagrams and performing number theoretical discretization for the space-time surface in terms of cognitive representation consisting of a finite number of space-time points.
   

   Besides Grassmannians also other flag manifolds - having Kähler structure and maximal symmetries and thus having structure of homogenous space G/H - can be considered and might be associated with the dynamical symmetries as remnants of super-symplectic isometries of WCW.
   
   

2. Grassmannian residue integration is somewhat frustrating procedure: it gives the amplitude as a sum of contributions from a finite number of residues. Why this work when outcome is given by something at finite number of points of Grassmannian?!
   

   In M⁸ picture in TGD cognitive representations at space-time level as finite sets of points of space-time determining it completely as zero locus of real or imaginary part of octonionic polynomial would actually give WCW coordinates of the space-time surface in finite resolution.
   

   The residue integrals in twistor diagrams would be the manner to realize quantum classical correspondence by associating a space-time surface to a given scattering amplitude by fixing the cognitive representation determining it. This would also give the scattering amplitude.
   

   Cognitive representation would be highly unique: perhaps modulo the action of Galois group of extension of rationals. Symmetry breaking for Galois representation would give rise to supersymmetry breaking. The interpretation of supersymmetry would be however different: many-fermion states created by fermionic oscillator operators at partonic 2-surface give rise to a representation of supersymmetry in TGD sense.
   
   

See the article The Recent View about Twistorialization in TGD Framework or the chapter chapter with the same title.

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

Articles and other material related to TGD.