Learning Feynman Diagrams: Matrices & Dirac Adjoints

Immortalis
Messages
3
Reaction score
0
I am trying to learn about Feynman diagrams and am confused by some of the notation. In particular, what do matrices, in particular the Dirac adjoint, have to do with Feynman propogators and why are they in imaginary terms?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Immortalis said:
I am trying to learn about Feynman diagrams and am confused by some of the notation. In particular, what do matrices, in particular the Dirac adjoint, have to do with Feynman propogators and why are they in imaginary terms?

Feynman diagrams are terms in the perturbative expansion of the scattering operator
S = \sum_{n = 0}^{\infty} \frac{(-i)^{n}}{n!} \int \cdots \int d^{4}x_{1} \cdots d^{4}x_{n} \ T \big\{ \mathcal{H}(x_{1}) \cdots \mathcal{H}_{I}(x_{n}) \big\} ,
where T time-orders the product of operators, and \mathcal{H}_{I} is the interaction Hamiltonian. For QED,
\mathcal{H}_{I}(x) = - \mathcal{L}_{int.}(x) = -e N \big\{ \bar{\psi}(x) \gamma^{\mu}\psi (x) A_{\mu}(x) \big\} , where \mathcal{L}_{int.} is the interaction Lagrangian, and N\{\cdots\} denotes the normal ordering product. For two scalar operators at t_{1}\neq t_{2}, Wick’s theorem relates the T-product to the Normal order product N\{\cdots\} and the Feynman propagator \Delta_{F}:
T \big\{ \phi^{\dagger}(x_{1}) \phi (x_{2}) \big\} = N \big\{ \phi^{\dagger}(x_{1}) \phi (x_{2}) \big\} + i \Delta_{F}(x_{1}-x_{2}) , with
i \Delta_{F}(x_{1}-x_{2}) = \langle 0 | T \big\{ \phi^{\dagger}(x_{1}) \phi (x_{2}) \big\} | 0 \rangle .
Since you are learning about Feynman diagrams, make sure that you learn and understand all the under-lined words and phrases.
 
  • Like
Likes nrqed and Immortalis
samalkhaiat said:
Feynman diagrams are terms in the perturbative expansion of the scattering operator
S = \sum_{n = 0}^{\infty} \frac{(-i)^{n}}{n!} \int \cdots \int d^{4}x_{1} \cdots d^{4}x_{n} \ T \big\{ \mathcal{H}(x_{1}) \cdots \mathcal{H}_{I}(x_{n}) \big\} ,
where T time-orders the product of operators, and \mathcal{H}_{I} is the interaction Hamiltonian. For QED,
\mathcal{H}_{I}(x) = - \mathcal{L}_{int.}(x) = -e N \big\{ \bar{\psi}(x) \gamma^{\mu}\psi (x) A_{\mu}(x) \big\} , where \mathcal{L}_{int.} is the interaction Lagrangian, and N\{\cdots\} denotes the normal ordering product. For two scalar operators at t_{1}\neq t_{2}, Wick’s theorem relates the T-product to the Normal order product N\{\cdots\} and the Feynman propagator \Delta_{F}:
T \big\{ \phi^{\dagger}(x_{1}) \phi (x_{2}) \big\} = N \big\{ \phi^{\dagger}(x_{1}) \phi (x_{2}) \big\} + i \Delta_{F}(x_{1}-x_{2}) , with
i \Delta_{F}(x_{1}-x_{2}) = \langle 0 | T \big\{ \phi^{\dagger}(x_{1}) \phi (x_{2}) \big\} | 0 \rangle .
Since you are learning about Feynman diagrams, make sure that you learn and understand all the under-lined words and phrases.
As I am currently a high school senior with basic experience in physics and calculus, and much of this terminology flies over my head, would you know any good places where I can break this down so I can understand it?
 
Immortalis said:
As I am currently a high school senior with basic experience in physics and calculus, and much of this terminology flies over my head, would you know any good places where I can break this down so I can understand it?
Well, calculations based on Feynman diagrams are post-grad stuff, normally covered in quantum field theory courses. So, you should for now just trust the descriptive explanation of the diagrams. I believe Frank Close wrote a nice little book about elementary particles and theire interaction, which can be appropraite to your level.
 
Last edited:
I think Feynman himself touches on his diagrams towards the end of his book QED: the Strange Theory of Light and Matter. It's a pretty good introduction.
 
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
If we release an electron around a positively charged sphere, the initial state of electron is a linear combination of Hydrogen-like states. According to quantum mechanics, evolution of time would not change this initial state because the potential is time independent. However, classically we expect the electron to collide with the sphere. So, it seems that the quantum and classics predict different behaviours!
Back
Top