Does it make sense to say that the processes represented by Feynman diagrams and path integrals (like beta decay) are “real?” If you want to say in what sense they are or are not real, please respond!
-
-
But sometimes the momenta of the incoming asymptotic states are different from the momenta of the outgoing particles. Thus something must happen in-between which implies that, at least in some sense, interaction processes must be real too.
-
Which processes are you referring too? Conservation of momentum is one of the holiest of conservation laws! if there is kissing momentum that (I think) just means that some on shell particle (DM/neutrinos?) escaped without detection
- 4 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
An ontology with only on-shell particles is inadequate for interactions; on-shell photons can't cause charged particles to repel or attract. Off-shell particles don't propagate stably through free space, but they are essential. (thanks
@DennisForen for helping me understand this) -
Great point! Realists place a constraint on their interpretations such that they have to “explain the success of science.” We’d be unable to do so if we didn’t get interactions
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
By definition vacua are constructed to be Lorentz invariant.. I know QFT on curved spacetime a exist and are just fine , but its writing the curvature source terms that’s the hard part
- 3 more replies
-
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
-
How on-shell do you have to be to be real? Isn't any unstable particle technically off-shell by some small amount? Also you can have on-shell production of say the Higgs but it won't be an asymptotic state because it decays
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.