The Twistor theory- Unification of Physics

[Tipp]

Hey TTonliners, this is interesting, See if you science bods out there understand this. I tried following this string theory from early days but bit farfetched but someone outthere might be able to explain it to us in simple plain language?

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=simple-twist-of-fate&sc=CAT_SPC_20100610
From the June 2010 Scientific American Magazine | 32 comments

"Twistor" Theory Reignites the Latest Superstring Revolution
A simple twist of fate: An old idea from Roger Penrose excites string theorists. Abstract first paragraph>>: ""In the late 1960s the renowned University of Oxford physicist and mathematician Roger Penrose came up with a radically new way to develop a unified theory of physics. Instead of seeking to explain how particles move and interact within space and time, he proposed that space and time themselves are secondary constructs that emerge out of a deeper level of reality. But his so-called twistor theory never caught on, and conceptual problems stymied its ....etc........""

[Tipp]

Sorry, before some esteemed person here jump on me, please Moderator can you move this to Science? thank you

[Scorpio]

Steups, I well thought this thread was about some kinda new POlitical theory that would finally explain the troubling question of why Patrick Manning would call a snap election he was sure to lose ...... TWICE. lol

[roger]

I tried following this string theory from early days but bit farfetched but someone outthere might be able to explain it to us in simple plain language?

*** If the author himself cannot explain the theory how do you expect "someone out there" to explain it? The author, one Brian Green I think, is still alive so ask him to explain it if you can get in touch with him.

The only interest that that theory seems to generate, in my view, is the interest of curiousity but evidently it cannot do anything more than generate curiosity because it is not a theory of any sound scientific significance.

The aim of its author is evidently to keep it shrouded in mystery so as to sell his books: here you are asking for an explanation but where is the link to the theory itself?

The theory is basically nonsense, in my view, from the little I have seen of it.

Roger

[Tipp]

Roger, do you think the article above on theory is nonsense if it found its way into the Journal of the American Association for the Advancement of Science? nah come again. This is a well respected Journal of Science. I just thought there were intelligent people in our midsts likeTheoretical Physicists who have heard of the String theory. Never mind forget it.

[Tipp]

What others are saying good, some say nonsense.

mike cook at 09:02 AM on 05/25/10
This thing needs a name. I propose "Twistorstring" for simplicity and I hope Witten likes it. I met Penrose once and he seemed to be a remarkably hunble person so I am glad for him his idea has sprung back to life.Reply | Report Abuse.Brandon T. Bisceglia at 11:29 AM on 05/26/10

String “theory” continues to break ground as a model, and certainly helps to understand a number of mechanistic processes. But I think it has yet to come up with the demonstrable evidence to accurately wear the title of theory, which should be reserved for mental constructs that have more undergirding.

That said, this is an intriguing step forward in our attempt to draft an initial understanding.

[roger]

Roger, do you think the article above on theory is nonsense if it found its way into the Journal of the American Association for the Advancement of Science? nah come again. This is a well respected Journal of Science. I just thought there were intelligent people in our midsts likeTheoretical Physicists who have heard of the String theory. Never mind forget it.

*** To believe that a theory is good because it found its way into a particular Journal is certainly not the way thinking people should approach things. My view on the theory is derived from the small amount of reading I have been able to do on it.

You may not be the right person to ask this seeing that you yourself are asking questions but one of my questions is: what does the theory mean by the 11 dimensions about which it speaks?

Classical physics holds that there are 3 fundamental dimensions of matter in mass, length and time. What have the authors of this strings theory discovered in their mathematical models that cause them to come to this 11 dimension deduction?

It seems evident to me that the math with which they have been fiddling around might have yielded 9 (sub) dimensions to completely define space, one dimension of mass and one of time giving 11 altogether.

But I can only speculate because I do not have access to the whole theory, only bits and pieces here and there. Nine sub-dimensions of space can be uinderstood as the three object/ particle size dimensions in length, width and height; three dimensions for particle location in x, y and z from some point of reference, and; three for its orientation which is given by angles q, f and t say ( ie theta, phi and tau: the symbols format did not work here) to some reference axis.

This simple mathematical explanation for the 9 dimensions of the theory, if true, is of course mystified in the theory and all kinds of illogical explanations are tendered.

I maintain that the theory is foolishness to the best of my present knowledge.

Roger

[Tipp]

Roge- leave it off nah. I k now about the theory but did not understand this part, hence I asked. There were TV programmes here in London on the original theory in layman's language but this Twistor is new to me. I am just trying to get physicists engaged in a chat here not be aggressive about it. Let it go now lets go back to politics. You dont know who I am, if I was interested in this means I know something about physics eh? closed it down now.

[roger]

Roge- leave it off nah. I k now about the theory but did not understand this part, hence I asked. There were TV programmes here in London on the original theory in layman's language but this Twistor is new to me. I am just trying to get physicists engaged in a chat here not be aggressive about it. Let it go now lets go back to politics. You dont know who I am, if I was interested in this means I know something about physics eh? closed it down now.


*** Ok, Tipp.


Roger