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!
-
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
-
-
Isn't all of mathematics a big lesson on degeneracy? You have many ways to describe the same things, and they are all correct in their contexts. Why should physics have a One True Way? My approach is to rethink what we mean by "real" instead of imposing ourselves into nature.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
I kinda think of it like biased vs unbiased rendering. Think of the wave equation vs Huygens-Fresnel principle as an analogy to Schrödinger Eq. vs path integrals. Both describe the same thing in different forms conceptually, but are mathematically equivalent in their limits.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
The unbiased approach just does everything without care and the results emerge from it. The biased rendering is just us adding a heuristic to simplify the description and computation. It shifts where you place simplicity, but you add a bias to the model. Is THAT bias real?
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.