| ▲ | godelski 2 hours ago | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
They cite that paper in the third paragraph...
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 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ▲ | 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? | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||