tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8666091.post4199441668639201280..comments2021-05-03T21:54:48.969+02:00Comments on The Reference Frame: Diaperhedron can't match amplituhedronLuboš Motlhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17487263983247488359noreply@blogger.comBlogger19125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8666091.post-73059145816712034912013-10-14T21:25:39.378+02:002013-10-14T21:25:39.378+02:00Very exciting work and the start of a whole new de...Very exciting work and the start of a whole new deeper way of making sense of our Universe I believe (from a layman's perspective)... Anyone else can see 'aesthetic' correspondences between the Amplituhedron and this beautiful image that encapsulates some surprisingly deep mathematical patterns and symmetries about our decimal system? Link here: http://api.ning.com/files/7uOLuxXjk4grrWOHnuKLvN2PNyxCKbaEIR*gQeu4EYTuteqBqyiT6Ne*knwVzn2ny8IuMdA3ZOOlNL8oL0QArKiFHpNBdNta/vortexmathenneagramGlowcopy.jpgGerald Husseinnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8666091.post-73118568855591561012013-09-28T09:09:12.819+02:002013-09-28T09:09:12.819+02:00Decent reply, Lubos.Decent reply, Lubos.andrewp3noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8666091.post-89924133746756681822013-09-28T06:47:30.190+02:002013-09-28T06:47:30.190+02:00It's wonderful and I like it except that I don...It's wonderful and I like it except that I don't really know what it mathematically means - more precisely how a general "volume" differs from a general "integral". Every integral may be viewed as a "volume" because its integrand is always a "volume form" of a kind.<br /><br /><br />The shape whose volume we calculate depends on the properties of the external gluons and it's arguably a greater dependence than the dependence of the integrand on the external data.<br /><br /><br />What looks novel here is that the integrand doesn't even depend on the external momenta and/or positions and/or twistor data. I don't really know any example of a calculation in field theory or string theory that satisfies the same condition. On the other hand, a substitution could arguably always make it true.Luboš Motlhttp://motls.blogspot.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8666091.post-36734869665682390262013-09-28T00:40:25.557+02:002013-09-28T00:40:25.557+02:00The point is that a volume is a scattering amplitu...The point is that a volume is a scattering amplitude. This is a step toward reformulating physics as geometry.Happinessahedronnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8666091.post-8856192128216731792013-09-23T19:33:45.975+02:002013-09-23T19:33:45.975+02:00Indeed, a quick look at his results kind of confir...Indeed, a quick look at his results kind of confirms that it's very likely just bogus. If you look at his plots that should show the transition, you see that they are very noisy, and not at all the sharp transition you would see if the entire material or even a relevant fraction of it became superconducting. So at the very most, a tiny part of the material becomes superconducting, but there are many other transitions that also could be responsible for such a small change, and the measurement technique seems quite bad (as usual from these kind of crackpots).hopffibernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8666091.post-84395921021482425082013-09-22T23:29:27.020+02:002013-09-22T23:29:27.020+02:00complexity and the idea of "auxiliary" s...complexity and the idea of "auxiliary" space-time are not unrelated :)Andrei Patrascunoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8666091.post-38811857090594013432013-09-22T16:42:04.567+02:002013-09-22T16:42:04.567+02:00Let me tell you that as somebody from within the q...Let me tell you that as somebody from within the quantum info community, 3 of 5 people are self-promoters with a little knowledge of basic physique and Aaronson is their prince. The best is to ignore him. His reaction will be to ridicule himself even more. QI is a great tool for physics but it is just a tool - these people forgot/do not see what is really fundamental for Nature's description. It's unbelievable that he compares his shitty complexity classes with such a profound observation of NIma et company.amerdernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8666091.post-35027607319203041012013-09-22T16:04:41.350+02:002013-09-22T16:04:41.350+02:00The non locality statement appears to be made beca...The non locality statement appears to be made because the amplituhedron is global in nature, but the non unitary statement is a little more troubling since it means that there is some sort of failure in uniqueness. I had to switch to real numbers to begin building some thoughts on this, because the singular nature of non orthogonalty is more evident. http://www.khanacademy.org/math/algebra/algebra-matrices/inverting_matrices/v/singular-matricesanonynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8666091.post-49062511272031089522013-09-22T14:08:51.251+02:002013-09-22T14:08:51.251+02:00I again empathize with you.
It seems to me that...I again empathize with you. <br /><br /><br />It seems to me that within almost every obnoxiously person (I've been and can still be one) is a chronic or acute absence of a deep enough relevant insight (typically in the form of a crucially deficient self-appraising awareness).Peter F.noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8666091.post-64574488575871920602013-09-22T00:38:51.466+02:002013-09-22T00:38:51.466+02:001. If space-time is to be "emergent" it ...1. If space-time is to be "emergent" it would be a good idea to start from some formalism in which space-time's concepts are not used *a priori*. However, there is nothing in that particular formalism that suggests how can spacetime emerge from something else, since it is based upon a quantum field theory construct already in RxR^3. So as far as we know, it is a striking discovery, if it is correct, but from a mathematical physics perspective and not from a fundamental physics one.<br /><br />2. Let me remark that there are mathematics which are not oriented or inspired directly from Nature but which have some beauty. I am thinking in Number Theory. As Hardy, one of the greatest number theorists said, "(...) there is no permanent place in this world for ugly mathematics". Of course that **pure** number theory is far more beautiful than applied computer science, which is related to but very different from the former.mnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8666091.post-54943328311721267032013-09-22T00:37:46.172+02:002013-09-22T00:37:46.172+02:00Wait, wait ... are you serious about this http://w...Wait, wait ... are you serious about this http://www.superconductors.org/42C_mod.htm ? Uow, it seems much more impressive than finding Higgs-Boson ... now theory will have a hard time for explaining such "huge Tc" superconductors.<br />So please, a blog entry! ;-)NumCrackernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8666091.post-21050942521417564512013-09-21T23:28:18.016+02:002013-09-21T23:28:18.016+02:00Dear Lubos,
I find it bizarre that the web site th...Dear Lubos,<br />I find it bizarre that the web site that you linked claims one HTC record after the other at room temparature since 2011 while the record at wikipedia is still 138 K.Mikaelnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8666091.post-53197684063226704612013-09-21T22:43:36.753+02:002013-09-21T22:43:36.753+02:00It's an actual shape in a space whose volume, ...<i>It's an actual shape in a space whose volume, when calculated through a <br />very simple volume form, precisely generates all the scattering <br />amplitudes of the maximally supersymmetric gauge theory in four <br />dimensions</i><br />-What kind of space? Is it some abstract space of scattering amplitudes or twistor space?<br />-Is amplituhedron unique to N=4 supersymmetric gauge theory or is there a similar structure in the heart of every gauge theory, even the not susy ones?<br />-At what energy scale and by what mechanism is SUSY broken?Mephistonoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8666091.post-44829014540956339092013-09-21T22:16:57.619+02:002013-09-21T22:16:57.619+02:00i agree with wittens comment that "very unexp...i agree with wittens comment that "very unexpected from several points of view,” <br />after all you said. it is very easy to occams razor a "particle field" from feynmann diagrams<br />that they are not entirely accurate and by default cannot be accurate would yield these sums<br />of a psuedo-invariant which is rather useless and nth power less accurate than feynman diagrams.<br />i would say this is useless and is hype, but i wont bother to explain the "castles in the sky".fakenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8666091.post-6884217734215627772013-09-21T22:09:41.151+02:002013-09-21T22:09:41.151+02:00not sure why Amplituhedron shows up at DailyKos, M...not sure why Amplituhedron shows up at DailyKos, MotherJones and DemocraticUnderground sites ! I hope we don't get a bunch of nuts speculating about what it has to do with eastern philosophy.<br />Thanks for links.physicsnutnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8666091.post-3687059840290370252013-09-21T21:01:56.123+02:002013-09-21T21:01:56.123+02:00Dear Lumo, thanks for sharing these deep, and enle...Dear Lumo, thanks for sharing these deep, and enleightening thoughts here ! Reading this article made me forget everything around me and filled me calm satisfaction and happiness, quite Zen ... ;-)<br /><br />Even though I know much less math than you and should really learn some more (darn!), I guess I agree with you about what is deep and beautiful.<br /><br />I particularly like your ideas about the role string theory considerations could play and how it could help explain why the new way of calculation works. <br /><br />As you describe it, it seems to me a bit premature too, to say that a completely new principle of physics has been found. Maybe this will happen in the coarse of finding out the deeper reason why it works.<br /><br />However, I appreciate how Nima seriously and honestly likes physics and when watching one of his talks I always immediately become excited too :-D<br /><br />Now I will try and see what I can make out of the TRF recommanded material that gives further information about these amplituhedron issues as I find time for it and I am curious abou how these things will develop in the future :-)<br /><br />CheersDilatonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8666091.post-75726826491529013032013-09-21T20:42:41.520+02:002013-09-21T20:42:41.520+02:00No, I disagree with everything you write.
SUSY i...No, I disagree with everything you write.<br /><br /><br />SUSY is definitely a topic in physics, not maths, which is also why particle physicists know it while most mathematicians don't.<br /><br /><br />SUSY is a symmetry of the laws of physics.<br /><br /><br />I also disagree that SUSY hasn't been shown to be relevant for physics. It is relevant because it is necessary for realistic low-energy physics in the only possible consistent quantum theory of gravity, string/M-theory.<br /><br /><br />The N=4 gauge theory is equivalent to AdS5 x S5 background of type IIB string theory which is as good a solution to the laws of string theory as the Universe around us.<br /><br /><br />But even if we talked about theories with laws that aren't obeyed our Universe, it's still true that certain classes of theories, like gauge theories, are topics for physicists that mathematicians wouldn't be interested in exactly because the motivation to study these particular mathematical structures is purely physics, not mathematical.Luboš Motlhttp://motls.blogspot.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8666091.post-89074548837716688762013-09-21T20:41:02.055+02:002013-09-21T20:41:02.055+02:00No, he doesn't. :-)No, he doesn't. :-)Scott Aaronsonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8666091.post-56793598490490812222013-09-21T20:34:35.493+02:002013-09-21T20:34:35.493+02:00Lubos you are talking about the beauty of physics ...Lubos you are talking about the beauty of physics and the emptiness of math, but the subject you are discussing is not physics at all. Susy has not been shown to be relevant to physics, and maximally supersymmetric Yang Mills far less so. <br />While these are interesting problems for sure, at the present time they are just math. Do you agree?John Dixonnoreply@blogger.com