Skip to main content
Physics

Return to Question

added 47 characters in body
Source Link
Qmechanic ♦
Qmechanic ♦
  • 213.1k
  • 48
  • 590
  • 2.3k

I was reading around about the AmplituhedronAmplituhedron (there are many topics on this SE or in other places for discussions outside this), and I was wondering, is supersymmetry required to make it work or to define it?

I find the quest to geometrize anything wonderful, and this object would be really useful if with it we could calculate things which actually exist in nature.

I was reading around about the Amplituhedron (there are many topics on this SE or in other places for discussions outside this), and I was wondering, is supersymmetry required to make it work or to define it?

I find the quest to geometrize anything wonderful, and this object would be really useful if with it we could calculate things which actually exist in nature.

I was reading around about the Amplituhedron (there are many topics on this SE or in other places for discussions outside this), and I was wondering, is supersymmetry required to make it work or to define it?

I find the quest to geometrize anything wonderful, and this object would be really useful if with it we could calculate things which actually exist in nature.

Source Link
LowFieldTheory
LowFieldTheory
  • 547
  • 6
  • 16

Amplituhedron without SUSY

I was reading around about the Amplituhedron (there are many topics on this SE or in other places for discussions outside this), and I was wondering, is supersymmetry required to make it work or to define it?

I find the quest to geometrize anything wonderful, and this object would be really useful if with it we could calculate things which actually exist in nature.