Well, it took a while, but I am saddened to report that the "surveys of research" and especially the wall of text accessible via that link are exactly what I was dreading. A big pile of unconnected bits and bobs of real science, sciencey-sounding stuff, unproven one-person hypotheses, and made-up bollocks, all conflated as if they are a "field of study". The two complementary-polarised circularly-polarised laser beams, for example, are an excellent example of what I cited previously: Rotationally polarised electromagnetic emission, which is entirely founded in fully-understood physics and which has nothing whatsoever to do with "torsion fields". The way they behave is then a good example of sciencey-sounding, but made up observations that are not repeatable experiments, asserted as fact.
A blur of mixed-together fact, confusion, mistakes and bollocks. Add on a "tifosi" of unqualified fans and you end up with what Richard Feynman calls "Cargo Cult Science"
The only "real" aspect of torsion fields seem to be people misunderstanding the rotating polarisation of plane waves emanating from a rotating object, which is something that happens (for example) in orbiting satellites that spin to obtain positional stabilisation. Bullshit merchants will slap on a few references to the property of "spin" in subatomic particles, the principle of rotational momentum or moment of inertia, the principle of torque, and some real work on special interpretations of Maxwell's equations (work that happened and looked exciting but went nowhere, as is the nature of science - mistakes are the foundation of the path to truth). Even more sadly, all the seriously-funded "proper" research seems to have been outed as scams, embezzlement of research funding, and other actually dirty/illegal things which have led to ruined reputations and people being fired from their posts.
To gain a picture of this, have a quick peek here:
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Torsion_field
Quoting vintage Soviet or latter Russian "studies" is a popular, but tired trick in the west to provide a serious-sounding backdrop of support for cranks and quackery. The difficulty that a non-Russian-reader has in looking these papers up makes it tempting to assume that this stuff is respectable, peer-reviewed science. Sadly, Russia is absolutely brimming with nutters writing "scientific papers" and always has been; space travel is especially laden with loonies, to the point where at least 2 minority religions have arisen from the colossal popularity of the Soviet (and later Russian) Space programme. This is problematic to the point of being parodied. A superb example is an art installation (and a book about it) called "The man who flew into space from his apartment", which you might like to look up. It's hilarious.
Vesperman's "Torsion Field Physics" is not evidence or research, but a commentary on other people's so-called studies, which appears to be basically a series of vague descriptions of practically undocumented, unrepeated research with unconfirmed, unrepeatable results, incomplete descriptions of methods, incomplete results, cognitive bias and what appears to be second-hand reports of sciencey-sounding "work" that may be totally made-up.
"Torsion Fields" by Quantem (is this an author?) is something I couldn't find. is it a publication? Is it real?
The whole "Torsion Fields" thing is a superb example of made-up science, which appears so complicated to the layperson that they don't feel able to discount it by looking at what has been published. Some real phenomena seem so bizarre, but are successfully described using arcane and difficult mathematics combined with a dash of "black art" that utter bollocks like Torsion Fields seem eminently believable in comparison, and get accepted.
Take tropospheric radio wave propagation, for example. Read a few articles about it and it starts to look like a load of horse doo, made up by amateur scientists and back-yard shed-based "inventors" armed with string, toy telescopes and poorly-remembered pub conversations with that bloke in the corner who seems to know stuff. Yet it is actually a completely real and very well-documented, solidly-understood phenomenon that is merely hard to predict (in the way that meteorology is).
Sorry, but there appears to be nothing at all published anywhere that supports whatever this so-called theory is actually supposed to be. A lot of articles are just referencing each other, leading to no actual research or results. You can pop this onto the shelf alongside Zero Point Energy and Cold Fusion.
