This made me realize that I had always implicitly and vaguely assumed that Feynman diagrams are stylized versions of the bubble chamber tracks. They aren't? (I know basically zip about the diagrams except that they condense boilerplate perturbation hair in some a convenient way. I guess on reflection that doesn't seem to have much to do with the tracks? Sorry to be stupid, I don't know any physics almost.)
It's not stupid and I don't understand this too well. (I am also half asleep this morning, so this might not be the greatest response.)
Feynman diagrams are a bit older than bubble chambers, and they are spacetime processes rather than spatial tracks, so they definitely aren't just stylized versions, but maybe there is some interesting connection that goes deeper than 'they are both some lines'.
The formal use of Feynman diagrams is exactly what you said, condensing boilerplate perturbation hair. In the review I tried to get into how there was this split in understanding the meaning of the diagrams, with Dyson taking the boilerplate view, whereas Feynman's original view was much more based on trying to represent actual particles in spacetime. I don't have a great understanding of Feynman's motivations, I'd have to read a bunch more stuff, but he'd had this idiosyncratic program for a while at this point trying to remove fields from physics in favour of direct particle interaction.
Ah, right. That seemed anomalous when I read it. I mean, his attitude must have changed. He was involved with the MIT AI lab much later, and I remember him more than once firmly telling AI guys who wanted to believe in physics theories based on discrete stuff "no that doesn't work, nature is continuous fields, think about fields." I guess he spent long enough trying to do it to have decided that you can't.
I only realised after I wrote this that it's weird that I ended up referencing that old 'call for perturbations' while I was talking about perturbation theory
This made me realize that I had always implicitly and vaguely assumed that Feynman diagrams are stylized versions of the bubble chamber tracks. They aren't? (I know basically zip about the diagrams except that they condense boilerplate perturbation hair in some a convenient way. I guess on reflection that doesn't seem to have much to do with the tracks? Sorry to be stupid, I don't know any physics almost.)
It's not stupid and I don't understand this too well. (I am also half asleep this morning, so this might not be the greatest response.)
Feynman diagrams are a bit older than bubble chambers, and they are spacetime processes rather than spatial tracks, so they definitely aren't just stylized versions, but maybe there is some interesting connection that goes deeper than 'they are both some lines'.
The formal use of Feynman diagrams is exactly what you said, condensing boilerplate perturbation hair. In the review I tried to get into how there was this split in understanding the meaning of the diagrams, with Dyson taking the boilerplate view, whereas Feynman's original view was much more based on trying to represent actual particles in spacetime. I don't have a great understanding of Feynman's motivations, I'd have to read a bunch more stuff, but he'd had this idiosyncratic program for a while at this point trying to remove fields from physics in favour of direct particle interaction.
Ah, right. That seemed anomalous when I read it. I mean, his attitude must have changed. He was involved with the MIT AI lab much later, and I remember him more than once firmly telling AI guys who wanted to believe in physics theories based on discrete stuff "no that doesn't work, nature is continuous fields, think about fields." I guess he spent long enough trying to do it to have decided that you can't.
Oh, interesting, I was vaguely wondering whether his views changed while reading that bit.
Oh, this is really weird, I totally didn't get your punning on "perturbation." I have a cheddar and spinach casserole for brains.
I only realised after I wrote this that it's weird that I ended up referencing that old 'call for perturbations' while I was talking about perturbation theory
Oh, glad it's not just me then!