Remix.run Logo
godelski 2 hours ago

  > I think this was all already figured out in 1986 though
They cite that paper in the third paragraph...

  Naively, the n-gluon scattering amplitude involves order n! terms. Famously, for the special case of MHV (maximally helicity violating) tree amplitudes, Parke and Taylor [11] gave a simple and beautiful, closed-form, single-term expression for all n.
It also seems to be a main talking point.

I think this is a prime example of where it is easy to think something is solved when looking at things from a high level but making an erroneous conclusion due to lack of domain expertise. Classic "Reviewer 2" move. Though I'm not a domain expert and so if there was no novelty over Parke and Taylor I'm pretty sure this will get thrashed in review.

CGMthrowaway 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

You're right. Parke & Taylor showed the simplest nonzero amplitudes have two minus helicities while one-minus amplitudes vanish (generically). This paper claims that vanishing theorem has a loophole - a new hidden sector exists and one-minus amplitudes are secretly there, but distributional

rightbyte 2 hours ago | parent [-]

> simplest nonzero amplitudes have two minus helicities while one-minus amplitudes vanish

Sorry but I just have to point out how this field of maths read like Star Trek technobabble too me.

layer8 an hour ago | parent | next [-]

Where do you think Star Trek got its technobabble from?

DonHopkins 24 minutes ago | parent [-]

Have I got a skill for you!

trekify/SKILL.md: https://github.com/SimHacker/moollm/blob/main/skills/trekify...

athrowaway3z 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cn4fW0EInqw

nyc_data_geek1 an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

So it's a garbage headline, from an AI vendor, trying to increase hype and froth around what they are selling, when in fact the "new result" has been a solved problem for almost 40 years? Am I getting that right?

singpolyma3 17 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

No

throwuxiytayq an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

you’re not, and you might have a slight reading comprehension problem

jrflowers 32 minutes ago | parent [-]

Surely you can explain it yourself, then? A person such as yourself with normal reading comprehension would be able to analyze and synthesize this on your own, without asking an LLM for help, no?