Really, this OP overlaps part GQ and GD, but I’ll put it in GD since we’re really talking theoretical physics.
In the vein of Penrose’s Twistor Theory, what sort of alternate theories are among the most likely outside of other alternate theories such as Superstring theories, et al.?
For myself, I’m very interested in astrophysics which focus on the geometries of space-time, what we know about Relativity, and how this might resolve issues between GR and QM, especially among areas in the universe where the two violently collide.
Needless to say, the current Standard Model falls short along things like the event horizons of black holes and such.
As an example, could such a thing like the idea of every point in space-time actually be akin to an origin of a complex space, allowing for two temporal dimensions (a plane of time; 6+2 spacial/temporal respectively), where as any particle approaching c, begins to converge along the other axis of time, until it reached the event horizon, where to observers along the original temporal axis, would perceive it frozen in time and vice versa (when in fact, neither is the case on a temporal plane—it’s just a matter of relative direction along that plane. To each particle, everything else seems normal).
What is modern thinking among experts right now along these lines (and also any speculation or arguments for or against such theories would be most welcome)?
I’d never heard of Penrose’s “twistor” theory before…so I’ve got some catching up to do before I could answer…
I love “String Theory” as an abstract, purely mathematical model of the known particles and forces. It’s pretty. It’s the sort of thing that should be true, just because it’s so damn elegant.
Unfortunately, that isn’t the way science works… (Well, okay, just a little. An elegant theory will be viewed with slightly less suspicion than an ugly one. Scientists are human, after all.)
Most certainly agreed. String theory definitely scores points in elegance. Though, the macro bias of my human scale craves dimensions that aren’t so curled up and elusive (and as few as possible).
Really, if I could focus on one aspect of the OP, if there’s a debate or even a discussion to be had, it’s the idea of two temporal dimensions of time. It does intrigue me so, as it at least allows me to almost literally visualize whats happening to matter, and what GR tells us we observe, as it falls into a black hole crossing the event horizon.
But at least science does start in such a way. Hypothesis attempt to explain the observations. Theories are hypothesis backed up by evidence. I suppose I’m more curious where hypothesis lay on the though of bi-dimensional time, or even multi-dimentional.