Nice! It is quite an exciting turn - getting away from string theory must be a good thing IMVHO.It reminds me somehow of Slaughterhouse 5. The amplituhedron existing outside of time and space and just IS.

QuoteOriginally posted by: outrunHere is an interesting read!The Amplituhedron geometric object dramatically simplifies calculations of particle interactions and challenges the notion that space and time are fundamental components of realityvery nice indeed

"Physicists have discovered a jewel-like geometric object that dramatically simplifies calculations of particle interactions and challenges the notion that space and time are fundamental components of reality."Well, if people had believed space and time were fundamental, they wouldn't have started working on hydrodynamic models of the universe, quantum loop gravity, etc. But it's always nice when some physicists at Princeton or Caltech dust old algebraic geometry books. The paper is just a mathematical method, a way of performing QFT calculations. It's no new physics/theory and it challenges nothing, but I think the jewel-like geometric objects and amplituhedrons have a big chance to make it to Mass Effect 4 dialogues.

QuoteOriginally posted by: Ultraviolet"Physicists have discovered a jewel-like geometric object that dramatically simplifies calculations of particle interactions and challenges the notion that space and time are fundamental components of reality."Well, if people had believed space and time were fundamental, they wouldn't have started working on hydrodynamic models of the universe, quantum loop gravity, etc. But it's always nice when some physicists at Princeton or Caltech dust old algebraic geometry books. The paper is just a mathematical method, a way of performing QFT calculations. It's no new physics/theory and it challenges nothing, but I think the jewel-like geometric objects and amplituhedrons have a big chance to make it to Mass Effect 4 dialogues.I'm very ignorant on the topic, but aren't so the Feynman's diagrams and the grassmannian as well? And yet they are important to help people make their discoveries. I mean, I don't see why being critical here: it's an educational article, of course they had to put some spice in it.

QuoteOriginally posted by: Ultraviolet"Physicists have discovered a jewel-like geometric object that dramatically simplifies calculations of particle interactions and challenges the notion that space and time are fundamental components of reality."Well, if people had believed space and time were fundamental, they wouldn't have started...Try telling string theorists....

QuoteOriginally posted by: DevonFangsQuoteOriginally posted by: Ultraviolet"Physicists have discovered a jewel-like geometric object that dramatically simplifies calculations of particle interactions and challenges the notion that space and time are fundamental components of reality."Well, if people had believed space and time were fundamental, they wouldn't have started working on hydrodynamic models of the universe, quantum loop gravity, etc. But it's always nice when some physicists at Princeton or Caltech dust old algebraic geometry books. The paper is just a mathematical method, a way of performing QFT calculations. It's no new physics/theory and it challenges nothing, but I think the jewel-like geometric objects and amplituhedrons have a big chance to make it to Mass Effect 4 dialogues.I'm very ignorant on the topic, but aren't so the Feynman's diagrams and the grassmannian as well? And yet they are important to help people make their discoveries. I mean, I don't see why being critical here: it's an educational article, of course they had to put some spice in it.Yes, Feynman diagrams are a graphical representation of perturbation calculus, while grassmannians are geometric constructions which have been used to find solutions of wave equations already since the 30s. I'm saying that the discussed Nature paper presents nothing new either to physics or mathematics, despite what the authors claim (that they discovered new physics and structures new to mathematics). It won't solve the N vs NP problem and GUT either. They use "standard" graphical calculus and operate on well-known structures - something the silent mathematicians co-authoring the paper know much better than me... I'm not eating this spiced crap and I think it's very unhealthy for science. But I have to say I've seen worse things published in top journals. It's a closed circle - the journals like to publish research from top institutions because they are supported by their money, groups at top institutions get more grants thanks to high IF publications, the money set them high in rankings (the uni rankings are mostly determined by the income of the institutions) and the groups publish a lot of crappy papers in high IF journals, ...

QuoteAn electron is driving down a motorway, and a policeman pulls him over. The policeman says: "Sir, do you realise you were travelling at 130km per hour?" The electron goes: "Oh great, now I'm lost."

QuoteOriginally posted by: Traden4AlphaQuoteAn electron is driving down a motorway, and a policeman pulls him over. The policeman says: "Sir, do you realise you were travelling at 130km per hour?" The electron goes: "Oh great, now I'm lost."nice

QuoteOriginally posted by: UltravioletQuoteOriginally posted by: DevonFangsQuoteOriginally posted by: Ultraviolet"Physicists have discovered a jewel-like geometric object that dramatically simplifies calculations of particle interactions and challenges the notion that space and time are fundamental components of reality."Well, if people had believed space and time were fundamental, they wouldn't have started working on hydrodynamic models of the universe, quantum loop gravity, etc. But it's always nice when some physicists at Princeton or Caltech dust old algebraic geometry books. The paper is just a mathematical method, a way of performing QFT calculations. It's no new physics/theory and it challenges nothing, but I think the jewel-like geometric objects and amplituhedrons have a big chance to make it to Mass Effect 4 dialogues.I'm very ignorant on the topic, but aren't so the Feynman's diagrams and the grassmannian as well? And yet they are important to help people make their discoveries. I mean, I don't see why being critical here: it's an educational article, of course they had to put some spice in it.Yes, Feynman diagrams are a graphical representation of perturbation calculus, while grassmannians are geometric constructions which have been used to find solutions of wave equations already since the 30s. I'm saying that the discussed Nature paper presents nothing new either to physics or mathematics, despite what the authors claim (that they discovered new physics and structures new to mathematics). It won't solve the N vs NP problem and GUT either. They use "standard" graphical calculus and operate on well-known structures - something the silent mathematicians co-authoring the paper know much better than me... I'm not eating this spiced crap and I think it's very unhealthy for science. But I have to say I've seen worse things published in top journals. It's a closed circle - the journals like to publish research from top institutions because they are supported by their money, groups at top institutions get more grants thanks to high IF publications, the money set them high in rankings (the uni rankings are mostly determined by the income of the institutions) and the groups publish a lot of crappy papers in high IF journals, ... I like it