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!
-
I'd say all paths in path integrals are real. We have experiments showing these crazy paths seem to exist (e.g. triple slit experiments). What we informally call "real\reality" is just large-scale decoherence between different indicator states.
I see the motivation for your conclusion, but there’s a huge degeneracy in the theory space! many formulations of QM give the same physical predictions
-
-
I mean, can you think of any mathematical idea that isn't degenerate, without a different method to get the same result? I can't. So why would any mathematical description of physics ever be unique? It makes sense to me to look for answers in a different conceptual level, then.
-
That’s true! But hopefully those equivalent mathematical descriptions can give rise to different physical predictions somehow.
- 6 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
Degeneracy seems to be key part of it all, from the way I see it. Perhaps not embracing it is part of the problem.
-
Yea .. there are a lot of formulations that are equally ‘real’ imo, given our current knowledge
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
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.