What's new inTopological Geometrodynamics: an OverviewNote: Newest contributions are at the top! 
Year 2015 
Analogs of quantum matrix groups from finite measurement resolution?The notion of quantum group replaces ordinary matrices with matrices with noncommutative elements. This notion is physically very interesting, and in TGD framework I have proposed that it should relate to the inclusions of von Neumann algebras allowing to describe mathematically the notion of finite measurement resolution (see this). These ideas have developed slowly through various side tracks. In it is interesting to consider the notion of quantum matrix inspired by recent view about quantum TGD. It turns out that under some additional conditions this approach provides a concrete representation and physical interpretation of quantum groups in terms of finite measurement resolution.
Quantum matrices define a more general structure than quantum group but provide a concrete representation for them in terms of finite measurement resolution if q is a root of unity. For q=+/ 1 (BoseEinstein or FermiDirac statistics) one obtains quantum matrices for which the determinant is apart from possible change by sign factor invariant under the permutations of both rows and columns. One can also understand the recursive fractal structure of inclusion sequences of hyperfinite factors resulting by replacing operators appearing as matrix elements with quantum matrices and a concrete connection with quantum groups emerges. In Zero Energy Ontology (ZEO) Mmatrix serving as the basic building brick of unitary Umatrix and identified as a hermitian square root of density matrix provides a possible application for this vision. Especially fascinating is the possibility of hierarchies of measurement resolutions represented as inclusion sequences realized as recursive construction of Mmatrices. Quantization would emerge already at the level of complex numbers appearing as Mmatrix elements. This approach might allow to unify various ideas behind TGD. For instance, Yangian algebras emerging naturally in twistor approach are examples of quantum algebras. The hierarchy of Planck constants should have a close relationship with inclusions and fractal hierarchy of subalgebras of supersymplectic and other conformal algebras. See the article Analogs of quantum matrix groups from finite measurement resolution? or the chapter Evolution of Ideas about Hyperfinite Factors in TGD. 
Variation of Newston's constant and of length of dayJ. D. Anderson et al have published an article discussing the observations suggesting a periodic variation of the measured value of Newton constant and variation of length of day (LOD) (see also this). This article represents TGD based explanation of the observations in terms of a variation of Earth radius. The variation would be due to the pulsations of Earth coupling via gravitational interaction to a dark matter shell with mass about 1.3× 10^{4}M_{E} introduced to explain Flyby anomaly: the model would predict Δ G/G= 2Δ R/R and Δ LOD/LOD= 2Δ R_{E}/R_{E} with the variations pf G and length of day in opposite phases. The expermental finding Δ R_{E}/R_{E}= M_{D}/M_{E} is natural in this framework but should be deduced from first principles. The gravitational coupling would be in radial scaling degree of freedom and rigid body rotational degrees of freedom. In rotational degrees of freedom the model is in the lowest order approximation mathematically equivalent with Kepler model. The model for the formation of planets around Sun suggests that the dark matter shell has radius equal to that of Moon's orbit. This leads to a prediction for the oscillation period of Earth radius: the prediction is consistent with the observed 5.9 years period. The dark matter shell would correspond to n=1 Bohr orbit in the earlier model for quantum gravitational bound states based on large value of Planck constant. Also n>1 orbits are suggestive and their existence would provide additional support for TGD view about quantum gravitation. For details see the chapter Cosmology and Astrophysics in ManySheeted SpaceTime or the article Variation of Newston's constant and of length of day.

What went wrong with symmetries?Theoretical physics is in deep crisis. This is not bad at all. Crisis forces eventually to challenge the existing beliefs. Crisis gives also hopes about profound changes. In physical systems criticality means sensitivity, long range fluctuations and long range correlations, and this makes phase transition possible. In TGD framework life emerges at criticality! The crisis of theoretical physics has many aspects. The crisis relates closely to the sociology of science and to the only game in the town attitude. The prevailing materialistic philosophy of science combined with the naive length scale reductionism form part of the sad story. The seeds of the crisis were sown in birthdays of quantum mechanics. The fathers of quantum theory were well aware that quantum measurement theory is the Achilles heel of the newborn quantum theory but later the pragmatically thinking theoreticians labelled questioning of the basic concepts as "philosophy" not meant for a respectable physicist. The recent quantum measurement theory is just a collection of rules and observer still remains an outsider. To my view the proper formulation of quantum measurement theory requires making observer a part of systems. This means that physics must be extended to a theory of consciousness. This raises several fundamental challenges and questions. How to define "self" as a conscious entity? How to resolve the conflict between two causalities: that of field equations and that of "free will"? What is the relationship between the geometric time of physicist and the experienced time? How is the arrow of time determined and is it always the same? The evidence that living matter is macroscopic quantum system is accumulating: is a generalization of quantum theory required to describe quantum systems? What about dark matter: can we understand it in the framework of existing quantum theory? This list could be continued. In the following I will not consider this aspect more but restrict the consideration to an important key notion of recent day theoretical physics, namely symmetries. Physical theories rely nowadays on postulates about symmetries and there are many who say that quantum theory reduces almost totally group representation theory. There are refined mathematical tools making possible to derive the implications of symmetries in quantum theory such as Noether's theorem. These technical tools are extremely useful but it seems that methodology has replaced critical thought. By this I mean that the real nature of various symmetries has not been considered seriously enough and that this is one of the basic reasons for the recent dead end. In the following I describe what I see as the mistakes due to sloppy thinking (maybe "sloppying" might be shorthand for it) and discuss briefly the TGD based solution of the problems involved. This sloppiness manifests itself already in general relativity, in standard model there is no unification of color and electroweak symmetries and their different character is not understood, GUT approach is based on naive extension of gauge group and makes problematic predictions, supersymmetry in its standard form predicted to become visible at LHC energies is now strongly disfavoured experimentally, and superstring model led to landscape catastrophe what has left is AdS/CFT correspondence which has not led to victories. Could it be that also conformal invariance should be reconsidered seriously: a nontrivial generalization to 4D context is highly desirable so that 10D bulk would be replaced by 4D spacetime in the counterpart of AdS/CFT duality. Energy problem of GRT Energy and momentum are not welldefined notions in General Relativity. The Poincare symmetry of flat Minkowski space is lost and one cannot apply Noether's theorem so that the identification of classical conserved charges is lost and one can talk only about local conservation guaranteed by Einstein's equations realizing Equivalence Principle in weak form. In quantum theory this kind of situation is highly unsatisfactory since Uncertainty Principle means that momentum eigenstates are delocalized. This is sloppy thinking and the fact that quantization is to high extend representation theory for symmetry groups might well explain the failure of the attempts to quantize general relativity. TGD was born as a reaction to the challenge of constructing Poincare invariant theory of gravitation. The identification of spacetimes as 4surfaces of some higher dimensional space of form H=M^{4}× S lifts Poincare symmetries from spacetime level to the level of imbedding space H. In this framework GRT spacetime is an approximate macroscopic description obtained by replacing the spacetime sheets of manysheeted spacetime with single piece of M^{4}, which is slightly curved. Gravitational fields deviations of induced metric from Minkowski metric are replaced with their sum for various sheets. Same applies to gauge potentials. Einstein's equations express the remnants of Poincare symmetry for the GRT spacetime obtained in this manner. In superstring models one actually considers 10D Minkowski space so that the lifting of symmetries is possible. Also the compactification (say CalabiYau) to M^{4}× C still have Poincare symmetries. But after that one has 10 D gravitation and the same problems that one wanted to solve by introducing strings! School example about sloppying! Is color symmetry really understood? Many colleagues use to think that standard model is a closed chapter of theoretical physics. This is a further example of sloppy thinking.
Is Higgs mechanism only a parameterization of particle masses? The discovery of Higgs at LHC was very important step of progress but did not prove Higgs mechanism as a mechanism of massivation as sloppy thinkers believe. Fermion masses are not a prediction of the theory: they are put in by hand by assuming that Higgs couplings are proportional to the Higgs mass. It might well be that Higgs vacuum expectation value is the unique quantum field theoretic representation of particle massivation but that QFT approach cannot predict the masses and that the understanding of the massivation requires transcending QFT so that one describing particles as extended objects. String models were the first step to this direction but one step was not enough. In TGD framework more radical generalization is performed. Pointlike particle is replaced with a 3surface and particle massivation is described in terms of padic thermodynamics, which relies on very general assumptions such as a nontrivial generalization of 2D conformal invariance to 4D context to be discussed later, padic thermodynamics, padic length scale hypothesis, and mapping of the predictions for padic mass squared to real mass squared by what I call anonical identification. In this framework Higgs vacuum expectation value parametrizes the QFT limit already described and is calculable from generalized Feynman diagrammatics. GUT approach as more sloppy thoughts After the successes of standard model the naive guess was that theory of everything could be constructed by a simple trick: extend the gauge group to a larger group containing standard model gauge group as subgroup. One can do this and there is a refined machinery allowing to deduce particle multiplets, effective actions, beta functions, etc.. There exists of course an infinite variety of Lie groups and endless variety of GUTs have been proposed. The view about the Universe provided by GUTs is rather weird looking.
Supersymmetry in crisis Supersymmetry is very beautiful generalization of the ordinary symmetry concept by generalizing Liealgebra by allowing grading such that ordinary Lie algebra generators are accompanied by supergenerators transforming in some representation of the Lie algebra for which Liealgebra commutators are replaced with anticommutators. In the case of Poincare group the supergenerators would transform like spinors. Clifford algebras are actually superalgebras. Gamma matrices anticommute to metric tensor and transform like vectors under the vielbein group (SO(n) in Euclidian signature). In supersymmetric gauge theories one introduced super translations anticommuting to ordinary translations. Supersymmetry algebras defined in this manner are characterized by the number of supergenerators and in the simplest situation their number is one: one speaks about N=1 SUSY and minimal supersymmetric extension of standard model (MSSM) in this case. These models are most studied because they are the simplest ones. They have however the strange property that the spinors generating SUSY are Majorana spinors real in welldefined sense unlike Dirac spinors. This implies that fermion number is conserved only modulo two: this has not been observed experimentally. A second problem is that the proposed mechanisms for the breaking of SUSY do not look feasible. LHC results suggest MSSM does not become visible at LHC energies. This does not exclude more complex scenarios hiding simplest N=1 to higher energies but the number of real believers is decreasing. Something is definitely wrong and one must be ready to consider more complex options or totally new view abot SUSY. What is the situation in TGD? Here I must admit that I am still fighting to gain understanding of SUSY in TGD framework. That I can still imagine several scenarios shows that I have not yet completely understood the problem and am working hardly to avoid falling to the sin of sloppying myself. In the following I summarize the situation as it seems just now.
Could covariantly constant righthanded spinors generate exact N=2 SUSY? There are two spin directions for them meaning the analog N=2 Poincare SUSY. Could these spin directions correspond to righthanded neutrino and antineutrino. This SUSY would not look like Poincare SUSY for which anticommutator of super generators would be proportional to fourmomentum. The problem is that fourmomentum vanishes for covariantly constant spinors! Does this mean that the sparticles generated by covariantly constant ν_{R} are zero norm states and represent super gauge degrees of freedom? This might well be the case although I have considered also alternative scenarios. Both imbedding space spinor harmonics and the modified Dirac equation have also righthanded neutrino spinor modes not constant in M^{4}. If these are responsible for SUSY then SUSY is broken.
Have we been thinking sloppily also about superconformal symmetries? Super string models were once seen as the only possible candidate for the TOE. By looking at the proceedings of string theory conferences one sees that the age of super strings is over. Landscape problem and multiverse do not give much hopes about predictive theory and the only defence for super string models is as the only game in the town. Super string gurus do not know about competing scenarion but this is not a wonder given the fact that publishing of competing scenarios has been impossible since superstrings have indeed been the only game in the town! One of the very few almostpredictions of superstring theory was N=1 SUSY at LHC and it seems that it is already now excluded at LHC energies. AdS/CFT correspondence is a mathematical outcome inspired by superstring models. One of the variants of its variants states that there is duality between conformal theory in M^{4} appearing as boundary of 5D AdS and string theory in 10D space AdS_{5}× S^{5}. A more general duality would be between conformal theory in M^{n} and 10D space AdS_{n+1}× S^{10n1}. For n=2 the CFT would give conformal theory at 2D Minkowski space for which conformal symmetries (actually their hypercomplex variant) form an infiniteD group. Duality has interpretation in terms of holography but the notion of holography is much more general than AdS/CFT. AdS/CFT have been applied to nuclear physics but nothing sensational have been discovered. AdS/CFT have been tried also to explain the finding that what was expected to be QCD plasma behaves very differently. The first findings came from RHIC for heavy ion collisions and LHC has found that the strange effects appear already for proton heavy ion collisions. Essentially a deviation from QCD predictions is in question and in the regime where QCD should be a good description. AdS/CFT has not been a success. AdS/CFT is now applied also to condensed matter physics. At least hitherto no dramatic successes have been reported. This leads to ask whether sloppy thinking should be blamed again. AdS/CFT is mathematically rather sound and welltested but is the notion of conformal invariance behind it really the one that applies to real world physics?
See the chapter TGD and Mtheory or the article What went wrong with symmetries?. 