Any practical results yet from 'Twistor Uprising'?

+ 7 like - 0 dislike
131 views

In Nima's lectures on the 'Twistor Uprising' (for example here), he gushes about about new powerful techniques for calculating amplitudes, such as summing Feynman diagrams using 'BCFW recursion.' He makes it sound like there should be practical results, like new QCD amplitudes for use in Monte Carlo generators, etc. Are there any, or are any on the horizon? Or does he overstate the power of these new techniques?

EDIT: There is a recent blog post by Matt Strassler seeming to imply that BlackHat (a program that computes QCD amplitudes) uses some of these techniques.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2015-04-11 10:22 (UTC), posted by SE-user user1247
retagged Apr 11, 2015
Here is a link from 2007 physics.ox.ac.uk/pp/seminars/… "Twistor inspired developments in perturbative QCD". Mind you, I have sat through a phenomenology lecture which was using similar methods but did not call it "twistor". It may be calculations are implemented in the LHC monte carlos but called something else.(NNLO?)

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2015-04-11 10:22 (UTC), posted by SE-user anna v

+ 3 like - 0 dislike

The N=4 planar YM techniques are very close to describing actual Standard Model scattering amplitudes, and far more elegantly than Feynman methods. He is not overstating their importance. Note that Dixon, Bern et al were studying real QCD, and Parke and Taylor came up with the original MHV amplitudes without modern twistor methods. Moreover, the new techniques clearly show how the assumption of locality in the 20th century methods complicates the answer needlessly, and why BCFW is so important. All particle physicists should now be studying these methods. Moreover N=8 SUGRA is also being sorted out this way.

QCD is still a problem tho. But there is a great deal of new mathematics in the most recent combinatorial results, and it won't be long before some amazing progress is made in QCD itself. Probably.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2015-04-11 10:22 (UTC), posted by SE-user BrianWa
answered Dec 24, 2012 by (80 points)

Indeed, amplituhedron is now on.

 Please use answers only to (at least partly) answer questions. To comment, discuss, or ask for clarification, leave a comment instead. To mask links under text, please type your text, highlight it, and click the "link" button. You can then enter your link URL. Please consult the FAQ for as to how to format your post. This is the answer box; if you want to write a comment instead, please use the 'add comment' button. Live preview (may slow down editor)   Preview Your name to display (optional): Email me at this address if my answer is selected or commented on: Privacy: Your email address will only be used for sending these notifications. Anti-spam verification: If you are a human please identify the position of the character covered by the symbol $\varnothing$ in the following word:p$\hbar$ysicsOverf$\varnothing$owThen drag the red bullet below over the corresponding character of our banner. When you drop it there, the bullet changes to green (on slow internet connections after a few seconds). To avoid this verification in future, please log in or register.