Is There a Disconnect Between Intuition and Mathematics in Quantum Theory?

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter billy_boy_999
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Motion Reality Time
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the interpretation of Feynman diagrams in quantum field theory, specifically referencing the book "The New Quantum Universe" by Hey and Walters. The claim that Feynman diagrams serve merely as a tool to bypass complex mathematics is challenged, as these diagrams directly correlate to mathematical factors in the propagator integrand. The conversation highlights that quantum electrodynamics (QED) does not definitively state whether particles travel forward or backward in time, with physicists often favoring antiparticles for aesthetic reasons.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of Feynman diagrams in quantum field theory
  • Familiarity with quantum electrodynamics (QED)
  • Basic knowledge of propagator integrands
  • Concept of antiparticles in particle physics
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the mathematical formulation of Feynman diagrams in quantum field theory
  • Explore the implications of quantum electrodynamics (QED) on particle behavior
  • Investigate the role of antiparticles in particle physics
  • Learn about the aesthetic considerations in theoretical physics
USEFUL FOR

Physicists, students of quantum mechanics, and anyone interested in the intersection of intuitive understanding and mathematical representation in quantum theory.

billy_boy_999
Messages
131
Reaction score
0
quote from The New Quantum Universe by Hey, Walters:

"(Feynman diagrams are) only a device to get the right answer without having to use the complicated machinery of quantum field theory. Nothing, as far as we know, actually travels backwards in time."
is that an accurate statement?

does it imply that there's a complete non-link between even the simplest intuitive qualitative descriptions of quantum theory and the mathematics of it?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The statement by Hey and Walters is misleading. The Feynman diagrams are a condensed way of setting up the math. Each element in the diagram (input line, output line, exchange line, vertex) corresponds to a factor in the propagator integrand, so you can set up the math directly from the diagram.

The math will work either as the description of an antiparticle traveling forward in time or as the corresponding particle traveling backwards in time. (think positron, electron). QED doesn't say which is the case. Feynman apparently found it easy to think of particles moving backward in time, but most physicsts prefer to think in terms of antiparticles.
 
so it's a matter of aesthetics? :confused:
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 75 ·
3
Replies
75
Views
11K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K
  • · Replies 43 ·
2
Replies
43
Views
6K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
4K
  • · Replies 212 ·
8
Replies
212
Views
29K
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
6K
  • · Replies 37 ·
2
Replies
37
Views
8K