4 ms·
Ironically, I consider the amplituhedron to be very unclear. Every presentation by its author goes: "here's a triangle, here's a simplex, and now... ta-da... t
by jiggawatts 3y ago
Ironically, I consider the amplituhedron to be very unclear.
Every presentation by its author goes: "here's a triangle, here's a simplex, and now... ta-da... the amplituhedron is the same!"
He skips 15 steps every time. It's literally the "here's a circle, then another circle, and now just draw the rest of the owl", but in terms of theoretical physics.
- passion__desire 3y agoHe says in the lecture that physicists arrived at the simple representation by studying Feynman diagrams and looking at how terms cancel each other. And amplituhedron also gives rise to those same representation. This is the reason why he considers amplituhedron to be a good research path. He cites similar interpretation change that happened before in physics[0] [0] : https://youtu.be/sv7Tvpbx3lc?t=2664 https://youtu.be/sv7Tvpbx3lc?t=2664