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!
-
That's a hope, but why would they? At some point the descriptions end up being mathematically equivalent, don't they? Happens all the time in math! I don't put any hopes on experiments discerning what's the One True Way past some point. I'm not sure we're there yet, though.
Yes you’re right .. I suppose I should have said mathematically equivalilent in the ‘classical’ limit .. like how GR was to Newtonian gravity
-
-
I’m actually interested in whether or not the limiting relation equivalence holds btw Newtonian gravity in its original formulation or if we finesse a sort of historical revision
-
So instead of: GR —limit—> Newtonian gravity It’s GR —limit—> modern physicist version of Newtonian gravity I’ve seen this happen with some other cases so it’d be interesting to look into
- 2 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
I also find that a rather profound fact .. mathematical equivalence = physical equivalence
-
A lot of people disagree that this is the case btw (at least with a certain usage of physical)
- 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.