Talk:Feynman diagram
|
|
Template:Cleanup taskforce notice This article states that antiparticles aren't really normal particles travelling backwards in time, but the antiparticle article seems to say that seeing them as travelling backwards in time is a good interpretation. This is inconsistent.
- The antiparticle article is correct, however in practice it is more useful to consider it an anti-particle moving forward in time
- JeffBobFrank 02:24, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)
| Contents |
WikiTex
Man, that WikiTeX Feynman diagram thing at Wikisophia is the bee's knees. We need it over here! --Matt McIrvin 01:40, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
This article is too technical
This article would be fine for someone who already knows quite a lot about physics, and would thus would understand the explanations given, but I have very little physics knowledge and I can't understand the explanations given in this article of exactly what a Feynman diagram is. It would be great if an explanation would be added to the article in layman's terms to explain what one of these things actually is in terms a non-physicist would understand. Would some kind soul with physics knowledge please simplify and/or append a simpler explanation to this article? --NicholasTurnbull 00:03, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Picture
Maybe a picture of an actual diagram would be appropriate in this article? Anyone? --Ignignot 20:52, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)
Cleanup needed
This article has problems with its writing, particularly in the "Mathematical details" section. Some of the statements don't even make sense:
- Lemma: The reduced graph associated with a connected feynman graph is a tree. Otherwise, it is a forest.
Otherwise to what?
The paragraph immediately below it is incoherent, with extremely long sentences sprinkled liberally with parentheses. And so on.
Someone who understands the theory should do this article a huge favor and clean it up. RSpeer 05:11, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)