I Calculating a particular amplitude with Feynman diagrams

Ringo Hendrix
Messages
9
Reaction score
3
TL;DR Summary
This isn’t homework, I’m self taught. Pardon me for using pictures instead of typing out equations, I have no clue how to do that. So please don’t downvote this for that :-) I’m just really desperate to learn this.
So I’m trying to compute the probability amplitude of an electron with momentum p1 and a positron with momentum p2 annihilating into a photons with momenta q1 and q2.

My question is how do you use Feynman diagrams to calculate the first and second order expansions (seen in the third image)? I wouldn’t mind a step-by-step with minimal assumption similar to the pictures I posted. Any help would be greatly appreciated. Again I’m sorry about the pictures, but I really am unsure how to type out the equations but I hope and assume my writing is legible enough.

What I have so far
59624B62-B3ED-462E-BAA2-1AA4FEB87D5E.jpeg

59BCDEC6-11B1-4A49-AF19-CC4439537269.jpeg

9FDB9BCD-411B-468A-BE14-C9DB0CDC6794.jpeg
 

Attachments

  • 7B979D15-FFE5-4414-B78A-CC9B5C69FACC.jpeg
    7B979D15-FFE5-4414-B78A-CC9B5C69FACC.jpeg
    47.2 KB · Views: 308
Physics news on Phys.org
Ringo Hendrix said:
I really am unsure how to type out the equations

You do it using LaTeX:

https://www.physicsforums.com/help/latexhelp/
Please take the time to learn it and use it to type your equations. The issue is not just legibility but being able to quote parts of your post in responses; we can't do that if all the equations are in images. That makes it much harder for people to help you.
 
  • Like
Likes Ringo Hendrix
Ringo Hendrix said:
This isn’t homework, I’m self taught. [...] I’m just really desperate to learn this.
But,... presumably you are learning from QFT textbook(s), yes? If so, which one(s)? If not, go get a copy of (e.g.,) Peskin & Schroeder.

My question is how do you use Feynman diagrams to calculate the first and second order expansions (seen in the third image)? [...] I wouldn’t mind a step-by-step with minimal assumption [...]
Any respectable QFT textbook should do that. Best to try and learn from the textbook first, then come back here to clarify any details or steps that you don't follow, or can't figure out (but if you do this, be sure to cite page+eqn numbers in the book).
 
Not an expert in QM. AFAIK, Schrödinger's equation is quite different from the classical wave equation. The former is an equation for the dynamics of the state of a (quantum?) system, the latter is an equation for the dynamics of a (classical) degree of freedom. As a matter of fact, Schrödinger's equation is first order in time derivatives, while the classical wave equation is second order. But, AFAIK, Schrödinger's equation is a wave equation; only its interpretation makes it non-classical...
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. Towards the end of the first lecture for the Qiskit Global Summer School 2025, Foundations of Quantum Mechanics, Olivia Lanes (Global Lead, Content and Education IBM) stated... Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/quantum-entanglement-is-a-kinematic-fact-not-a-dynamical-effect/ by @RUTA
Is it possible, and fruitful, to use certain conceptual and technical tools from effective field theory (coarse-graining/integrating-out, power-counting, matching, RG) to think about the relationship between the fundamental (quantum) and the emergent (classical), both to account for the quasi-autonomy of the classical level and to quantify residual quantum corrections? By “emergent,” I mean the following: after integrating out fast/irrelevant quantum degrees of freedom (high-energy modes...

Similar threads

Back
Top