QUICK FACTS
Created Jan 0001
Status Verified Sarcastic
Type Existential Dread
Keywords
theoretical physics, twistor theory, roger penrose, quantum gravity, theoretical, mathematical physics, twistor space, space-time, differential geometry, integral geometry

Twistor Theory

“In the convoluted landscape of theoretical physics, twistor theory emerged in 1967, a brainchild of the inimitable Roger Penrose [1]. It was initially...”

Contents
  • 1. Overview
  • 2. Etymology
  • 3. Cultural Impact

Twistor Theory

In the convoluted landscape of theoretical physics , twistor theory emerged in 1967, a brainchild of the inimitable Roger Penrose [1]. It was initially conceived as a audacious, yet undeniably elegant, pathway [2] toward the elusive grail of quantum gravity . Since its inception, this theoretical framework has blossomed, evolving into a vibrant and extensively explored branch of both theoretical and mathematical physics . Penrose’s foundational assertion was revolutionary: that twistor space , not the familiar space-time itself, should serve as the quintessential, underlying arena for all physical phenomena, with space-time merely an emergent construct.

This audacious proposition has, perhaps predictably, yielded an arsenal of profoundly powerful mathematical tools. These tools have found indispensable applications across diverse fields, from the intricate curves of differential geometry and the volumetric insights of integral geometry to the unpredictable dynamics of nonlinear differential equations and the structured symmetries of representation theory . In the realm of physics, twistor theory has proven its mettle by offering fresh perspectives and computational advantages in areas such as general relativity , the enigmatic world of quantum field theory , and the increasingly vital domain of scattering amplitudes .

The genesis of twistor theory is firmly rooted in the intellectual ferment of the late 1950s and 1960s, a period marked by rapid and profound mathematical advancements within Einstein’s monumental theory of general relativity . It carries the distinct imprint of several influential currents from that era. Notably, Roger Penrose himself has openly acknowledged the significant early influence of Ivor Robinson on the development of twistor theory. Robinson’s pioneering work, particularly his construction of what are now known as Robinson congruences , provided a crucial conceptual precursor and inspiration for Penrose’s novel ideas [3]. It seems even the most original minds don’t spring from a vacuum; they merely refine the existing chaos.

Overview

At its core, projective twistor space , denoted as $\mathbb{PT}$, is nothing less than projective 3-space , more precisely represented as $\mathbb{CP}^3$. This structure, for those keeping score, stands as the simplest 3-dimensional compact algebraic variety one might encounter. Physically, it carries a rather profound interpretation: it is the very space of massless particles endowed with spin . One might be forgiven for thinking it’s a mere geometric abstraction, but it’s far more than that. This projective space is the projectivisation of a 4-dimensional complex vector space , known as non-projective twistor space, $\mathbb{T}$. This non-projective space is further equipped with a Hermitian form of signature (2, 2) and a holomorphic volume form , adding layers of complex structure to its definition.

The most natural way to grasp $\mathbb{T}$ is to understand it as the space of chiral (Weyl ) spinors for the conformal group SO(4,2)/Z$_2$ of Minkowski space . This makes it, quite elegantly, the fundamental representation of the spin group SU(2,2) of the aforementioned conformal group. While this definition holds true in four dimensions, it’s a framework flexible enough to be extended to arbitrary dimensions. Beyond dimension four, the convention shifts slightly: projective twistor space is then defined as the space of projective pure spinors [4] [5] for the conformal group [6] [7]. Because, of course, simplicity is rarely the ultimate goal in theoretical physics.

In its original formulation, twistor theory offers a method to encode physical fields residing in Minkowski space into complex analytic objects living in twistor space. This encoding is facilitated by the elegant machinery of the Penrose transform . This approach proves particularly natural and effective for describing massless fields of any arbitrary spin . Initially, these fields are derived through contour integral formulae, expressed in terms of free holomorphic functions defined over specific regions within twistor space. However, the holomorphic twistor functions that yield solutions to the massless field equations can be understood on a much deeper level: they serve as Čech representatives of analytic cohomology classes on regions within $\mathbb{PT}$. It’s a rather sophisticated way of saying “things are not as simple as they first appear.”

These powerful correspondences have not remained confined to linear fields; they have been artfully extended to encompass certain nonlinear fields. This includes, significantly, self-dual gravity, famously realized in Penrose’s groundbreaking nonlinear graviton construction [8]. Another notable extension is to self-dual Yang–Mills fields , achieved through the ingenious Ward construction [9]. In the former case, these constructions manifest as subtle deformations of the underlying complex structure of specific regions in $\mathbb{PT}$. In the latter, they give rise to particular holomorphic vector bundles defined over regions within $\mathbb{PT}$. These constructions, intricate as they are, have found widespread applications, permeating fields such as, among others, the theory of integrable systems [10] [11] [12].

However, the self-duality condition, while mathematically elegant, presents a substantial limitation when attempting to incorporate the full, complex nonlinearities of comprehensive physical theories. It’s a convenient simplification, but one that doesn’t capture the whole picture. Nevertheless, it proves sufficient for tackling specific, yet important, nonlinear phenomena such as Yang–Mills–Higgs monopoles and instantons , as demonstrated by the well-known ADHM construction [13].

An early, and rather ambitious, endeavor to circumvent this self-duality restriction involved the introduction of ambitwistors by Isenberg, Yasskin, and Green [14]. This was further extended to their superspace counterpart, super-ambitwistors, by the ubiquitous Edward Witten [15]. Ambitwistor space can be conceptualized as the space of complexified light rays or, equivalently, massless particles. It can also be viewed as a complexification or even a cotangent bundle of the original twistor description, providing a richer geometric context. By extending the ambitwistor correspondence to suitably defined formal neighborhoods, Isenberg, Yasskin, and Green [14] elegantly demonstrated an equivalence: the vanishing of curvature along such extended null lines directly implied the full Yang–Mills field equations . [14]

Witten [15] took this a step further, showing that a subsequent extension, situated within the framework of super Yang–Mills theory—which includes fermionic and scalar fields—yielded the constraint equations for N = 1 or 2 supersymmetry . For the higher symmetry cases of N = 3 (or 4), the condition of vanishing supercurvature along super null lines (super ambitwistors) was found to imply the entire set of field equations , including those governing the fermionic fields. This was subsequently proven to establish a one-to-one equivalence (one might even say a perfect match, for those who appreciate precision [clarify](/Wikipedia:Please_clarify)) between the null curvature constraint equations and the full supersymmetric Yang-Mills field equations [16] [17]. Furthermore, through the process of dimensional reduction, this profound connection could also be inferred from the analogous super-ambitwistor correspondence applicable to 10-dimensional, N = 1 super-Yang–Mills theory [18] [19]. It seems the universe enjoys its symmetries, even if we struggle to grasp them.

Beyond the self-dual sector, twistorial formulae for interactions found a new home in Witten’s seminal twistor string theory [20]. This theory posits a quantum description of holomorphic maps from a Riemann surface directly into twistor space. This conceptual leap led to the remarkably compact RSV (Roiban, Spradlin, and Volovich) formulae, which provide elegant expressions for the tree-level S-matrices of Yang–Mills theories [21]. However, the gravitational degrees of freedom within this specific formulation gave rise to a version of conformal supergravity , which, unfortunately, limited its broad applicability. Conformal gravity itself is a rather problematic theory, plagued by the presence of unphysical ghosts , although its interactions are indeed woven together with those of Yang–Mills theory in the calculation of loop amplitudes via twistor string theory [22]. A partial victory, then, but a victory nonetheless.

Despite these inherent shortcomings, twistor string theory undeniably catalyzed a period of rapid and significant advancements in the study of scattering amplitudes . One such development was the so-called MHV formalism [23], which, while loosely based on disconnected strings, eventually found a more fundamental grounding in terms of a twistor action for the full Yang–Mills theory within twistor space [24]. Another pivotal advance was the introduction of BCFW recursion [25]. This powerful technique possesses a strikingly natural formulation when viewed through the lens of twistor space [26] [27], which in turn inspired remarkable new expressions for scattering amplitudes in terms of elegant Grassmann integral formulae [28] [29] and intricate polytopes [30]. These ideas have, more recently, evolved into the concepts of the positive Grassmannian [31] and the now-famous amplituhedron , continuously pushing the boundaries of how we calculate and understand particle interactions.

Twistor string theory itself saw further extensions. This began by generalizing the RSV Yang–Mills amplitude formula, and then by identifying the underlying string theory responsible for it. The extension to gravity was expertly provided by Cachazo & Skinner [32], and subsequently formulated as a twistor string theory for maximal supergravity by David Skinner [33]. Analogous formulae were later discovered in all dimensions by Cachazo, He, and Yuan, applicable to both Yang–Mills theory and gravity [34], and subsequently for a diverse array of other theories [35]. These groundbreaking developments were then understood as string theories inhabiting ambitwistor space, a comprehensive framework developed by Mason and Skinner [36]. This general framework not only encompasses the original twistor string but also extends to generate a host of new models and formulae [37] [38] [39]. As string theories, they share the same critical dimensions as conventional string theory; for instance, the type II supersymmetric versions are critical in ten dimensions and are found to be equivalent to the full field theory of type II supergravities in ten dimensions. This is a crucial distinction from conventional string theories, which also contain an infinite hierarchy of massive higher spin states that typically provide an ultraviolet completion . Furthermore, these ambitwistor string theories extend to provide formulae for loop amplitudes [40] [41] and possess the flexibility to be defined on curved backgrounds [42]. It seems the universe, in its infinite wisdom, enjoys presenting us with multiple, equally complex, ways to describe itself.

Twistor Correspondence

Let us denote Minkowski space by $M$. Within this space, we employ coordinates $x^a = (t,x,y,z)$ and a Lorentzian metric $\eta_{ab}$ with a signature of $(1,3)$. To navigate this terrain, we introduce 2-component spinor indices: $A=0,1;$ and $A’=0’,1’$. With these in hand, the coordinates $x^{AA’}$ can be elegantly expressed in matrix form as:

$$ x^{AA’}={\frac {1}{\sqrt {2}}}{\begin{pmatrix}t-z&x+iy\x-iy&t+z\end{pmatrix}}. $$

Non-projective twistor space , denoted $\mathbb{T}$, is a four-dimensional complex vector space . Its coordinates are typically represented as $Z^{\alpha }=\left(\omega ^{A},,\pi {A’}\right)$, where $\omega^A$ and $\pi{A’}$ are two constant Weyl spinors . The inherent Hermitian form of this space can be elegantly expressed by defining a complex conjugation that maps elements from $\mathbb{T}$ to its dual, $\mathbb{T}^*$. This conjugation is given by $\bar{Z}{\alpha }=\left({\bar {\pi }}{A},,{\bar {\omega }}^{A’}\right)$, allowing the Hermitian form itself to be written as:

$$ Z^{\alpha }{\bar {Z}}{\alpha }=\omega ^{A}{\bar {\pi }}{A}+{\bar {\omega }}^{A’}\pi _{A’}. $$

This Hermitian form, alongside the holomorphic volume form , $\varepsilon _{\alpha \beta \gamma \delta }Z^{\alpha }dZ^{\beta }\wedge dZ^{\gamma }\wedge dZ^{\delta }$, possesses a crucial invariance. Both are preserved under the action of the group SU(2,2), which happens to be a quadruple cover of the conformal group C(1,3) of compactified Minkowski spacetime . A rather specific set of symmetries, wouldn’t you agree?

The crucial link between points in Minkowski space and subspaces within twistor space is established through the fundamental incidence relation:

$$ \omega ^{A}=ix^{AA’}\pi _{A’}. $$

This incidence relation exhibits an important property: it remains invariant under an overall complex rescaling of the twistor. This scaling, perhaps counter-intuitively, assigns a flagpole extent, a flag-plane direction, and a particular spinorial sign to the ray $Z \in \mathbb{PT}$. Furthermore, a real translation in Minkowski space, $x^{a}\rightarrow x^{a}+q^{a}$, will leave $Z^{\alpha}$ invariant, provided that $q^a$ takes the specific form $q^{a}=u{\bar {\pi }}^{A}\pi ^{A’}$, where $u$ is a real number. In essence, such a translation merely shifts the point $x$ to another location along the same twistor ray $Z$.

Conversely, fixing a specific point $x \in M$ in Minkowski space defines a unique line, a $\mathbb{CP}^1$, within projective twistor space $\mathbb{PT}$. This line is parametrised by the spinor $\pi_{A’}$. For scenarios where $x$ belongs to the real Minkowski space, i.e., $x \in \mathbb{R}$, the Hermitian form $Z^{\alpha }{\bar {Z}}{\alpha }$ must necessarily vanish. This condition implies that the corresponding complex projective line resides within $\mathbb{PN}$, the five-dimensional space of null twistors. Consequently, for non-null twistors, where $Z^{\alpha }{\bar {Z}}{\alpha }$ is non-vanishing, there are no real solutions in Minkowski space. These non-null twistors are interpreted physically as massless particles possessing spin . A rather inconvenient truth for those expecting a simple point-like existence: they are fundamentally non-localized in spacetime, precisely because no single ray is uniquely picked out to serve as the particle’s definitive world-line.

Variations

Even a theory as seemingly self-contained as twistor theory branches out, seeking to encompass more of the universe’s inherent complexities.

Supertwistors

In 1978, Alan Ferber introduced a significant extension: Supertwistors [43]. These are, predictably, a supersymmetric generalization of conventional twistors. The non-projective twistor space is augmented by the inclusion of fermionic coordinates, where $\mathcal{N}$ represents the number of supersymmetries . Thus, a supertwistor is now defined as $(\omega ^{A},,\pi _{A’},,\eta ^{i})$, with $i=1,\ldots ,{\mathcal {N}}$, and the $\eta^i$ coordinates are, as expected, anticommuting. The super conformal group SU(2,2 | $\mathcal{N}$) naturally acts upon this extended space. A supersymmetric variant of the Penrose transform then maps cohomology classes from supertwistor space to massless supersymmetric multiplets residing in super Minkowski space . For the specific case where $\mathcal{N}=4$, this framework provides the target for Penrose’s original twistor string . Meanwhile, the $\mathcal{N}=8$ case is the domain for Skinner’s powerful supergravity generalization, demonstrating the theory’s adaptability to higher symmetries.

Higher dimensional generalization of the Klein correspondence

A more expansive, higher-dimensional generalization of the Klein correspondence —the very geometric foundation underpinning twistor theory—was meticulously developed by J. Harnad and S. Shnider [4] [5]. This generalization finds its applicability in the study of isotropic subspaces within conformally compactified (and complexified) Minkowski space , as well as its various super-space extensions. It’s a testament to the fact that mathematical elegance often scales, albeit with added complexity.

HyperkÀhler manifolds

HyperkÀhler manifolds , those intriguing geometric structures with dimensions expressible as $4k$, also possess a compelling twistor correspondence [44]. For these manifolds, the associated twistor space exhibits a complex dimension of $2k+1$. This demonstrates the pervasive nature of twistor-like structures across different branches of geometry.

Palatial twistor theory

The initial nonlinear graviton construction, as brilliant as it was, had a specific limitation: it elegantly encoded only anti-self-dual, or “left-handed,” gravitational fields [8]. The problem of extending this framework to fully incorporate a general gravitational field, specifically the encoding of right-handed fields in a robust, nonlinear manner, became known as the “gravitational googly problem” [45]. (For those uninitiated, a “googly ” is a term from the arcane sport of cricket , referring to a ball bowled with right-handed helicity using an apparent action that would normally impart left-handed helicity. A rather fitting, if obscure, metaphor for a problem that demands a reversal of expectation).

Infinitesimally, these right-handed fields can be encoded within twistor functions or cohomology classes of homogeneity −6. However, the true challenge lies in leveraging such twistor functions in a fully nonlinear way to construct a right-handed nonlinear graviton. The most recent, and perhaps most ambitious, proposal to tackle this formidable challenge was put forth by Penrose himself in 2015: “palatial twistor theory” [46]. This theory is fundamentally rooted in the principles of noncommutative geometry applied directly to twistor space. The rather evocative name, “palatial,” is a nod to Buckingham Palace , where, as legend has it, Michael Atiyah [47] suggested to Penrose the critical use of a type of “noncommutative algebra "—a concept that became a cornerstone of the theory. It seems even the most profound physics can have rather whimsical origins. The underlying twistor structure in palatial twistor theory, rather than being modeled on the standard twistor space, was instead built upon the non-commutative holomorphic twistor quantum algebra , pushing the boundaries of what “geometry” can mean.

See also

Notes

  • [1] Penrose, R. (1967). “Twistor Algebra”. Journal of Mathematical Physics . 8 (2): 345–366. Bibcode :1967JMP…..8..345P. doi :10.1063/1.1705200.
  • [2] Penrose, R.; MacCallum, M.A.H. (1973). “Twistor theory: An approach to the quantisation of fields and space-time”. Physics Reports. 6 (4): 241–315. Bibcode :1973PhR…..6..241P. doi :10.1016/0370-1573(73)90008-2.
  • [3] Penrose, Roger (1987). “On the Origins of Twistor Theory”. In Rindler, Wolfgang; Trautman, Andrzej (eds.). Gravitation and Geometry, a Volume in Honour of Ivor Robinson. Bibliopolis. ISBN 88-7088-142-3.
  • [4] [a] [b] Harnad, J.; Shnider, S. (1992). “Isotropic geometry and twistors in higher dimensions. I. The generalized Klein correspondence and spinor flags in even dimensions”. Journal of Mathematical Physics. 33 (9): 3197–3208. Bibcode :1992JMP….33.3197H. doi :10.1063/1.529538.
  • [5] [a] [b] Harnad, J.; Shnider, S. (1995). “Isotropic geometry and twistors in higher dimensions. II. Odd dimensions, reality conditions, and twistor superspaces”. Journal of Mathematical Physics. 36 (9): 1945–1970. Bibcode :1995JMP….36.1945H. doi :10.1063/1.531096.
  • [6] Penrose, Roger; Rindler, Wolfgang (1986). Spinors and Space-Time. Cambridge University Press. pp. Appendix. doi :10.1017/cbo9780511524486. ISBN 978-0-521-25267-6.
  • [7] Hughston, L. P.; Mason, L. J. (1988). “A generalised Kerr-Robinson theorem”. Classical and Quantum Gravity. 5 (2): 275. Bibcode :1988CQGra…5..275H. doi :10.1088/0264-9381/5/2/007. ISSN 0264-9381. S2CID 250783071.
  • [8] [a] [b] Penrose, R. (1976). “Non-linear gravitons and curved twistor theory”. Gen. Rel. Grav. 7 (1): 31–52. Bibcode :1976GReGr…7…31P. doi :10.1007/BF00762011. S2CID 123258136.
  • [9] Ward, R. S. (1977). “On self-dual gauge fields”. Physics Letters A. 61 (2): 81–82. Bibcode :1977PhLA…61…81W. doi :10.1016/0375-9601(77)90842-8.
  • [10] Ward, R. S. (1990). Twistor geometry and field theory. Wells, R. O. Cambridge [England]: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-42268-0. OCLC 17260289.
  • [11] Mason, Lionel J.; Woodhouse, Nicholas M. J. (1996). Integrability, self-duality, and twistor theory. Oxford: Clarendon Press. ISBN 978-0-19-853498-3. OCLC 34545252.
  • [12] Dunajski, Maciej (2010). Solitons, instantons, and twistors. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-857062-2. OCLC 507435856.
  • [13] Atiyah, M. F.; Hitchin, N. J.; Drinfeld, V. G.; Manin, Yu. I. (1978). “Construction of instantons”. Physics Letters A. 65 (3): 185–187. Bibcode :1978PhLA…65..185A. doi :10.1016/0375-9601(78)90141-x.
  • [14] [a] [b] [c] Isenberg, James; Yasskin, Philip B.; Green, Paul S. (1978). “Non-self-dual gauge fields”. Physics Letters B. 78 (4): 462–464. Bibcode :1978PhLB…78..462I. doi :10.1016/0370-2693(78)90486-0.
  • [15] [a] [b] Witten, Edward (1978). “An interpretation of classical Yang–Mills theory”. Physics Letters B. 77 (4–5): 394–398. Bibcode :1978PhLB…77..394W. doi :10.1016/0370-2693(78)90585-3.
  • [16] Harnad, J.; LĂ©garĂ©, M.; Hurtubise, J.; Shnider, S. (1985). “Constraint equations and field equations in supersymmetric N = 3 Yang-Mills theory”. Nuclear Physics B. 256: 609–620. Bibcode :1985NuPhB.256..609H. doi :10.1016/0550-3213(85)90410-9.
  • [17] Harnad, J.; Hurtubise, J.; Shnider, S. (1989). “Supersymmetric Yang-Mills equations and supertwistors”. Annals of Physics. 193 (1): 40–79. Bibcode :1989AnPhy.193…40H. doi :10.1016/0003-4916(89)90351-5.
  • [18] Witten, E. (1986). “Twistor-like transform in ten dimensions”. Nuclear Physics. B266 (2): 245–264. Bibcode :1986NuPhB.266..245W. doi :10.1016/0550-3213(86)90090-8.
  • [19] Harnad, J.; Shnider, S. (1986). “Constraints and Field Equations for Ten Dimensional Super Yang-Mills Theory”. Commun. Math. Phys. 106 (2): 183–199. Bibcode :1986CMaPh.106..183H. doi :10.1007/BF01454971. S2CID 122622189.
  • [20] Witten, Edward (2004). “Perturbative Gauge Theory as a String Theory in Twistor Space”. Communications in Mathematical Physics. 252 (1–3): 189–258. arXiv :hep-th/0312171. Bibcode :2004CMaPh.252..189W. doi :10.1007/s00220-004-1187-3. S2CID 14300396.
  • [21] Roiban, Radu; Spradlin, Marcus; Volovich, Anastasia (2004-07-30). “Tree-level S matrix of Yang–Mills theory”. Physical Review D. 70 (2) 026009. arXiv :hep-th/0403190. Bibcode :2004PhRvD..70b6009R. doi :10.1103/PhysRevD.70.026009. S2CID 10561912.
  • [22] Berkovits, Nathan; Witten, Edward (2004). “Conformal supergravity in twistor-string theory”. Journal of High Energy Physics. 2004 (8): 009. arXiv :hep-th/0406051. Bibcode :2004JHEP…08..009B. doi :10.1088/1126-6708/2004/08/009. ISSN 1126-6708. S2CID 119073647.
  • [23] Cachazo, Freddy; Svrcek, Peter; Witten, Edward (2004). “MHV vertices and tree amplitudes in gauge theory”. Journal of High Energy Physics. 2004 (9): 006. arXiv :hep-th/0403047. Bibcode :2004JHEP…09..006C. doi :10.1088/1126-6708/2004/09/006. ISSN 1126-6708. S2CID 16328643.
  • [24] Adamo, Tim; Bullimore, Mathew; Mason, Lionel; Skinner, David (2011). “Scattering amplitudes and Wilson loops in twistor space”. Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical. 44 (45) 454008. arXiv :1104.2890. Bibcode :2011JPhA…44S4008A. doi :10.1088/1751-8113/44/45/454008. S2CID 59150535.
  • [25] Britto, Ruth ; Cachazo, Freddy; Feng, Bo; Witten, Edward (2005-05-10). “Direct Proof of the Tree-Level Scattering Amplitude Recursion Relation in Yang–Mills Theory”. Physical Review Letters. 94 (18) 181602. arXiv :hep-th/0501052. Bibcode :2005PhRvL..94r1602B. doi :10.1103/PhysRevLett.94.181602. PMID 15904356. S2CID 10180346.
  • [26] Mason, Lionel; Skinner, David (2010-01-01). “Scattering amplitudes and BCFW recursion in twistor space”. Journal of High Energy Physics. 2010 (1): 64. arXiv :0903.2083. Bibcode :2010JHEP…01..064M. doi :10.1007/JHEP01(2010)064. ISSN 1029-8479. S2CID 8543696.
  • [27] Arkani-Hamed, N.; Cachazo, F.; Cheung, C.; Kaplan, J. (2010-03-01). “The S-matrix in twistor space”. Journal of High Energy Physics. 2010 (3): 110. arXiv :0903.2110. Bibcode :2010JHEP…03..110A. doi :10.1007/JHEP03(2010)110. ISSN 1029-8479. S2CID 15898218.
  • [28] Arkani-Hamed, N.; Cachazo, F.; Cheung, C.; Kaplan, J. (2010-03-01). “A duality for the S matrix”. Journal of High Energy Physics. 2010 (3): 20. arXiv :0907.5418. Bibcode :2010JHEP…03..020A. doi :10.1007/JHEP03(2010)020. ISSN 1029-8479. S2CID 5771375.
  • [29] Mason, Lionel; Skinner, David (2009). “Dual superconformal invariance, momentum twistors and Grassmannians”. Journal of High Energy Physics. 2009 (11): 045. arXiv :0909.0250. Bibcode :2009JHEP…11..045M. doi :10.1088/1126-6708/2009/11/045. ISSN 1126-6708. S2CID 8375814.
  • [30] Hodges, Andrew (2013-05-01). “Eliminating spurious poles from gauge-theoretic amplitudes”. Journal of High Energy Physics. 2013 (5) 135. arXiv :0905.1473. Bibcode :2013JHEP…05..135H. doi :10.1007/JHEP05(2013)135. ISSN 1029-8479. S2CID 18360641.
  • [31] Arkani-Hamed, Nima; Bourjaily, Jacob L.; Cachazo, Freddy; Goncharov, Alexander B.; Postnikov, Alexander; Trnka, Jaroslav (2012-12-21). “Scattering Amplitudes and the Positive Grassmannian”. arXiv :1212.5605 [hep-th].
  • [32] Cachazo, Freddy; Skinner, David (2013-04-16). “Gravity from Rational Curves in Twistor Space”. Physical Review Letters. 110 (16) 161301. arXiv :1207.0741. Bibcode :2013PhRvL.110p1301C. doi :10.1103/PhysRevLett.110.161301. PMID 23679592. S2CID 7452729.
  • [33] Skinner, David (2013-01-04). “Twistor Strings for N = 8 Supergravity”. arXiv :1301.0868 [hep-th].
  • [34] Cachazo, Freddy; He, Song; Yuan, Ellis Ye (2014-07-01). “Scattering of massless particles: scalars, gluons and gravitons”. Journal of High Energy Physics. 2014 (7): 33. arXiv :1309.0885. Bibcode :2014JHEP…07..033C. doi :10.1007/JHEP07(2014)033. ISSN 1029-8479. S2CID 53685436.
  • [35] Cachazo, Freddy; He, Song; Yuan, Ellis Ye (2015-07-01). “Scattering equations and matrices: from Einstein to Yang–Mills, DBI and NLSM”. Journal of High Energy Physics. 2015 (7): 149. arXiv :1412.3479. Bibcode :2015JHEP…07..149C. doi :10.1007/JHEP07(2015)149. ISSN 1029-8479. S2CID 54062406.
  • [36] Mason, Lionel; Skinner, David (2014-07-01). “Ambitwistor strings and the scattering equations”. Journal of High Energy Physics. 2014 (7): 48. arXiv :1311.2564. Bibcode :2014JHEP…07..048M. doi :10.1007/JHEP07(2014)048. ISSN 1029-8479. S2CID 53666173.
  • [37] Berkovits, Nathan (2014-03-01). “Infinite tension limit of the pure spinor superstring”. Journal of High Energy Physics. 2014 (3) 17. arXiv :1311.4156. Bibcode :2014JHEP…03..017B. doi :10.1007/JHEP03(2014)017. ISSN 1029-8479. S2CID 28346354.
  • [38] Geyer, Yvonne; Lipstein, Arthur E.; Mason, Lionel (2014-08-19). “Ambitwistor Strings in Four Dimensions”. Physical Review Letters. 113 (8) 081602. arXiv :1404.6219. Bibcode :2014PhRvL.113h1602G. doi :10.1103/PhysRevLett.113.081602. PMID 25192087. S2CID 40855791.
  • [39] Casali, Eduardo; Geyer, Yvonne; Mason, Lionel; Monteiro, Ricardo; Roehrig, Kai A. (2015-11-01). “New ambitwistor string theories”. Journal of High Energy Physics. 2015 (11): 38. arXiv :1506.08771. Bibcode :2015JHEP…11..038C. doi :10.1007/JHEP11(2015)038. ISSN 1029-8479. S2CID 118801547.
  • [40] Adamo, Tim; Casali, Eduardo; Skinner, David (2014-04-01). “Ambitwistor strings and the scattering equations at one loop”. Journal of High Energy Physics. 2014 (4): 104. arXiv :1312.3828. Bibcode :2014JHEP…04..104A. doi :10.1007/JHEP04(2014)104. ISSN 1029-8479. S2CID 119194796.
  • [41] Geyer, Yvonne; Mason, Lionel; Monteiro, Ricardo; Tourkine, Piotr (2015-09-16). “Loop Integrands for Scattering Amplitudes from the Riemann Sphere”. Physical Review Letters. 115 (12) 121603. arXiv :1507.00321. Bibcode :2015PhRvL.115l1603G. doi :10.1103/PhysRevLett.115.121603. PMID 26430983. S2CID 36625491.
  • [42] Adamo, Tim; Casali, Eduardo; Skinner, David (2015-02-01). “A worldsheet theory for supergravity”. Journal of High Energy Physics. 2015 (2): 116. arXiv :1409.5656. Bibcode :2015JHEP…02..116A. doi :10.1007/JHEP02(2015)116. ISSN 1029-8479. S2CID 119234027.
  • [43] Ferber, A. (1978), “Supertwistors and conformal supersymmetry”, Nuclear Physics B, 132 (1): 55–64, Bibcode :1978NuPhB.132…55F, doi :10.1016/0550-3213(78)90257-2
  • [44] Hitchin, N. J.; Karlhede, A.; Lindström, U.; Roček, M. (1987). “Hyper-KĂ€hler metrics and supersymmetry”. Communications in Mathematical Physics. 108 (4): 535–589. Bibcode :1987CMaPh.108..535H. doi :10.1007/BF01214418. ISSN 0010-3616. MR 0877637. S2CID 120041594.
  • [45] Penrose 2004, p. 1000.
  • [46] Penrose, Roger (2015). “Palatial twistor theory and the twistor googly problem”. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences. 373 (2047) 20140237. Bibcode :2015RSPTA.37340237P. doi :10.1098/rsta.2014.0237. PMID 26124255. S2CID 13038470.
  • [47] “Michael Atiyah’s Imaginative State of Mind” – Quanta Magazine