Talk:Feynman diagram

message: Feynman won a nobel prize for this. Seems relevant. I will add if no one objects.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ftrotter (talk • contribs) 17:36, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

message: This section is VERY mislwading or in any case very LACKING.
It states that " Gerard 't Hooft and Martinus Veltman gave good arguments for taking the original, non-regularized Feynman diagrams as the most succinct representation of our present knowledge about the physic" but what are these 'good arguments'?
The quote ""The Feynman graphs and rules of calculation summarize quantum field theory in a form in close contact with the experimental numbers one wants to understand. Although the statement of the theory in terms of graphs may imply perturbation theory, use of graphical methods in the many-body problem shows that this formalism is flexible enough to deal with phenomena of nonperturbative characters ...""  does NOT at all argue for 'physical reality' (not as it is now, maybe it is more clear in context) but rather that Feynmann  diagrams are a good visualization of the MATH behind QFT rather than the actual 'physical reality'.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.175.161.14 (talk) 13:01, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Representation of physical reality

message: The description is very clear.
It would be really helpful to an interested lay reader to work the formulation with the electron-positron annihilation example. The article has a nice clear example. Now, build on that clarity.
Thanks for including more Feynman diagrams in the article.  It does help.
MiddleSchoolTeacher (talk) 03:44, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  The description is the most clear part of the article. 

message: The only direction of time consistent with the labelling of this Feynman diagram is from left to right, if you have time from bottom to top as you seem to want to the electron and quark are miss-labelled and should be a positron and an anti-quark. The interaction in your description is not what is depicted, a positron does not turn into an electron when it interacts with a quark through a virtual photon. Quogle (talk) 12:31, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough. Give me a minute, I'll fix the diagram so that it's consistent.--OCCullens (talk) 07:03, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: That is unnecessary, it is accurate as it stands, the description is entirely consistent with the diagram. Just to check you do know that the arrows for antiparticles point against the direction of time/propagation? It is possible that this is the source of confusion. Quogle (talk) 22:22, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  First Feynman diagram caption 

message: No arrows to indicate time direction Len loker (talk) 08:44, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: This makes it one of only two diagrams on the page that are correct. Feynman diagrams don't have space/time axes. Dukwon (talk) 14:20, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

text: By convention time is usually read left to right, or bottom to top. M∧Ŝc2ħεИτlk 17:04, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Motivation and History kaon diagram 

message: I removed this: "However, in 2006 Dyson himself confirmed that the diagrams should be called Feynman diagrams because "he taught us how to use them".". It was added in 2011 but has never been sourced and I cannot verify it. Fences&Windows 09:09, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I adduced the solid precise quote from Schwebber's book (op.cit), in the Alternative Names section. Feynman's heavy computational use of his eponymous spacetime diagrams as graphs of particle QED was firmed up, pedagogically, by Dyson's re-exression into QFT, and the purely symbolic abstract book-keeping device of today. Nevertheless, I personally know that Gell-Mann's jocular usage cited was not really a focussed historiographical statement. Cuzkatzimhut (talk) 19:16, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dyson quote 

message: There are six basic vertexes. Based on one vertex with an arrow pointing to the vertex, an arrow pointing out, and a wavy line from the vertex. This one vertex can be oriented in six ways giving the six basic vertexes. The vertexes are joined with others to describe interactions. It should be at the top of the article. Without this basic representation of the graphical context of Feynman Diagrams the other graphical diagrams are meaningless. The whole article becomes technobabble. By the way the usual representation is time is the vertical axis, and space is the horizontal. The article should use this convention because most source articles use it. Other phrases in source material are also based on this convention. For instance "an arrow pointing down the time axis is an anti particle" is meaningless if the time axis isn't vertical.   
98.164.66.166 (talk) 04:00, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Basic vertex explanation missing