• Register
PhysicsOverflow is a next-generation academic platform for physicists and astronomers, including a community peer review system and a postgraduate-level discussion forum analogous to MathOverflow.

Welcome to PhysicsOverflow! PhysicsOverflow is an open platform for community peer review and graduate-level Physics discussion.

Please help promote PhysicsOverflow ads elsewhere if you like it.


PO is now at the Physics Department of Bielefeld University!

New printer friendly PO pages!

Migration to Bielefeld University was successful!

Please vote for this year's PhysicsOverflow ads!

Please do help out in categorising submissions. Submit a paper to PhysicsOverflow!

... see more

Tools for paper authors

Submit paper
Claim Paper Authorship

Tools for SE users

Search User
Reclaim SE Account
Request Account Merger
Nativise imported posts
Claim post (deleted users)
Import SE post

Users whose questions have been imported from Physics Stack Exchange, Theoretical Physics Stack Exchange, or any other Stack Exchange site are kindly requested to reclaim their account and not to register as a new user.

Public \(\beta\) tools

Report a bug with a feature
Request a new functionality
404 page design
Send feedback


(propose a free ad)

Site Statistics

205 submissions , 163 unreviewed
5,079 questions , 2,229 unanswered
5,348 answers , 22,758 comments
1,470 users with positive rep
819 active unimported users
More ...

  Is integrability necessary for the Amplituhedron?

+ 6 like - 0 dislike

It is well known that there exist mappings between operators in N = 4 Super Yang–Mills and spin chain states making the theory Bethe Ansatz integrable. Is integrability a necessity for the Amplituhedron? Most QFTs are not integrable. Does Nima Arkani-Hamed, et al. claim to be able to extend the Amplituhedron to generic QFTs? Is then maybe integrability somehow hidden in the structure of all QFTs and the ones which are not integrable emerge as certain limits of the underlying Amplituhedron?

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-03-07 16:34 (UCT), posted by SE-user Bubble
asked Sep 20, 2013 in Theoretical Physics by Bubble (210 points) [ no revision ]

1 Answer

+ 6 like - 0 dislike

This question is answered by Nima Arkani-Hamed in his Simons Center talk, at about 112 minutes in.

His answer is that the structure of the amplituhedron itself does not directly use integrability of the theory in any way. It is only when you come to do the integrals themselves that integrability makes it possible. The amplituhedron itself is more linked to locality and unitarity conditions, while the positivity of the grassmannian is linked to the planar limit.

Since they only have the amplituhedron fully working for the N=4 theory at present it is impossible to say that integrability is not necessary to make the structure work, but he would be very surprised if it is not possible to extend the amplituhedron itself to N < 4 and perhaps even to ordinary N=0 Yang-Mills.

The part which should change with N is the form defined on the amplituhedron which is integrated to give its "volume". This form is simple for N=4 with just logarithmic singularities on the boundary. For N < 4 you need to multiply by another factor that has singularities elsewhere corresponding to unltraviolet divergences, Although this extension of the theory is not in such a complete state as the N=4 case, they are optimistic that it still works without the integrability so there is no reason to think that integrability is hidden in all QFTs

By the way they also hope to go beyond the planar limit by replacing positivity with some more general structure and it sounds like that work is progressing well.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-03-07 16:34 (UCT), posted by SE-user Philip Gibbs
answered Sep 20, 2013 by Philip Gibbs (650 points) [ no revision ]
If that's true then the amplituhedron is one of the most important advances in physics in a long time! Thanks!

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-03-07 16:34 (UCT), posted by SE-user Bubble
Yes that is what makes it so exciting but naturally people will be skeptical until they show it works more generally. (I added some more details to the answer)

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-03-07 16:34 (UCT), posted by SE-user Philip Gibbs

Your answer

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):
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:
Then 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).
Please complete the anti-spam verification

user contributions licensed under cc by-sa 3.0 with attribution required

Your rights