Talk:Amplituhedron

Please place new discussions at the bottom of the talk page.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Amplituhedron article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Physics Stub‑class

	Physics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics articles
Stub	This article has been rated as Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Mathematics Stub‑class

	Mathematics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mathematics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of mathematics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MathematicsWikipedia:WikiProject MathematicsTemplate:WikiProject Mathematicsmathematics articles
Stub	This article has been rated as Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's priority scale.

It is requested that an image or photograph of Amplituhedron be included in this article to improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific media request template where possible.
The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.

Upload

Usage and explanation of the terms Scattering amplitude, Scattering patterns

We should resolve several questions about the usage and explanation of the terms Scattering amplitude and Scattering patterns.

I've posted about this to Wikiproject Physics here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Physics#Amplituhedron.2C_Scattering_amplitude.2C_Scattering_patterns)

Thanks - 186.221.170.80 (talk) 20:26, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like an obvious next step for quantum mechanics to begin to treat mathematics as having the same eleven dimensions as physics. Where the authors speak of making educated guesses their mathematics might allow that rather than precision and irrational numbers there are values that have variable probabilities according to where and how they are vibrating on the membrane.It sounds like a somewhat libertarian philosophy that if you had no laws you would have no crimes...12.187.94.20 (talk) 09:50, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Supercalifragilistic

I love this article! There were almost 2 or three words which I have understood! ;-) [No, it's not a problem, it's an extreme topic.] --grin ✎ 06:59, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's not you, the article makes no attempt to explain anything. Miguel (talk) 10:42, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

M-theory?

I see no perceptible relationship to M-theory, and invite someone to explain the relationship before restoring the "See also" link to M-theory. As it is, this link seems more confusing than enlightening. 81.155.213.195 (talk) 18:45, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can see superficial connections between this stuff and well-known facts about angular momentum, group representations, topological quantum field theries, and the like. I cannot comment on M theory. Miguel (talk) 10:41, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Helpful blog?

The Amplituhedron and Other Excellently Silly Words 4 gravitons and a grad student, The trials and tribulations of four gravitons and a grad student

Why this article?

Am I correct in assuming that this article was written as a response to this popular piece?

https://www.simonsfoundation.org/quanta/20130917-a-jewel-at-the-heart-of-quantum-physics/

Miguel (talk) 10:38, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And a bunch of other coverage in the mainstream media, thus giving it WP:N. The hype level of that article is a bit high, but the backgrounds of the authors, the venues in which the research has been presented, and the generally favourable reception by respectable physics bloggers and by leading physicists such as Ed Witten attest that this is serious. and potentially important, research. This article is a bit wooly at the moment, and needs kicking into shape by experienced editors with relevant knowledge, but that's in progress. -- The Anome (talk) 07:59, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Grassmannian as an infinite dimensional space?

The article refers to the Grassmannian as an infinite dimensional space, but then links to the Wikipedia article that only defines a Grassmannian in terms of finite dimensional spaces. Will there be any attempt made to reconcile the two articles? Penguian (talk) 07:52, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Grassmannian Gr(k, V) comprises all the k-spaces through a point in V-dimensional space. Making V = ∞ (infinity) is perfectly meaningful and consistent with the Grassmannian article. Unfortunately I do not know if it the correct Grassmannian in the present context. If it is, and assuming also that k is finite, then my understanding is that the amplituhedron will not have a closed boundary and I do not understand how an interior volume can be defined. Equally, if k = ∞ - 1 then the volume must be infinite, which is not what we get, so that must be wrong. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 12:51, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The finite one applies here. AHusain (talk) 02:12, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]