Feynman Diagrams for Exam Prep: Position vs. Momentum Space

madness
Messages
813
Reaction score
69
I'm learning how to do Feynman diagrams for an exam coming up, and have come across diagrams in both position and momentum space. If I'm asked to draw a Feynman diagram without specifying which kind, is it generally assumed that it's in position space? If I label the the incoming and outgoing particles by momentum (as well as spin etc) is it then assumed that the diagram represents momentum space?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
yup correct! :)
 
What is the difference when drawing diagrams in momentum space and position space? In my notes the 2 lowest order diagrams for Compton scattering look quite different in momentum and position space. In position space the internal electron line in the second diagram points horizontally in position space and vertically in momentum space. What does this mean?
 
madness said:
What is the difference when drawing diagrams in momentum space and position space? In my notes the 2 lowest order diagrams for Compton scattering look quite different in momentum and position space. In position space the internal electron line in the second diagram points horizontally in position space and vertically in momentum space. What does this mean?

bump! I would like the answer to this as well.
 
madness said:
What is the difference when drawing diagrams in momentum space and position space? In my notes the 2 lowest order diagrams for Compton scattering look quite different in momentum and position space. In position space the internal electron line in the second diagram points horizontally in position space and vertically in momentum space. What does this mean?
The actual diagrams are the same in every basis, only the mathematical expressions representing the diagrams are different. As for your question about the internal electron line: if two diagrams only differ by some sort of rotation of propagator lines, the diagrams are the same (topologically equivalent), since when you write down the mathematical expression for the diagram, all that matters is the relative positioning of vertices and lines. The orientation of lines does not step into equations.
 
Last edited:
Thanks a lot that's exactly what I needed to know.
 
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...
Back
Top