What I had taken away as the big impact of the original "amplituhedron" article was that the researchers had found a way to replace long calculations with a shorter, geometrical calculation. Which, unless there's some profound connection between quantum complexity classes and geometry that I'm not aware of, wouldn't be the case with the "unitarihedron." So perhaps Aaronson isn't giving the amplituhedron concept the quite credit it deserves?
(Disclaimer- I haven't the background in complexity nor physics to have any idea, obviously. But geometrical calculations playing a key role in a theory that "did away with space" seemed like a wonderfully cool paradox.)
Comments
What I had taken away as the big impact of the original "amplituhedron" article was that the researchers had found a way to replace long calculations with a shorter, geometrical calculation. Which, unless there's some profound connection between quantum complexity classes and geometry that I'm not aware of, wouldn't be the case with the "unitarihedron." So perhaps Aaronson isn't giving the amplituhedron concept the quite credit it deserves?
(Disclaimer- I haven't the background in complexity nor physics to have any idea, obviously. But geometrical calculations playing a key role in a theory that "did away with space" seemed like a wonderfully cool paradox.)