It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
AT THE LARGE Hadron Collider in Geneva, physicists shoot protons around a 17-mile track and smash them together at nearly the speed of light. It’s one of the most finely tuned scientific experiments in the world, but when trying to make sense of the quantum debris, physicists begin with a strikingly simple tool called a Feynman diagram that’s not that different from how a child would depict the situation.
Feynman diagrams were devised by Richard Feynman in the 1940s. They feature lines representing elementary particles that converge at a vertex (which represents a collision) and then diverge from there to represent the pieces that emerge from the crash. Those lines either shoot off alone or converge again. The chain of collisions can be as long as a physicist dares to consider. To that schematic physicists then add numbers, for the mass, momentum and direction of the particles involved. Then they begin a laborious accounting procedure—integrate these, add that, square this. The final result is a single number, called a Feynman probability, which quantifies the chance that the particle collision will play out as sketched. “In some sense Feynman invented this diagram to encode complicated math as a bookkeeping device,” said Sergei Gukov, a theoretical physicist and mathematician at the California Institute of Technology. Feynman diagrams have served physics well over the years, but they have limitations. One is strictly procedural. Physicists are pursuing increasingly high-energy particle collisions that require greater precision of measurement—and as the precision goes up, so does the intricacy of the Feynman diagrams that need to be calculated to generate a prediction.
originally posted by: tikbalang
a reply to: Riffrafter
Thats a rabbit hole i have no interest in..
originally posted by: tikbalang
a reply to: Riffrafter
I leave the quantum leaps to the ones who 420
originally posted by: moebius
a reply to: Riffrafter
You've left out the interesting part
There seem to be certain patterns (strange numbers) In the complex calculations, which hint at an underlying structure. If there is one, it could greatly simplify the calculations, eventually lead to a better understanding of the nature of particles.
originally posted by: moebius
a reply to: Riffrafter
You've left out the interesting part
There seem to be certain patterns (strange numbers) In the complex calculations, which hint at an underlying structure. If there is one, it could greatly simplify the calculations, eventually lead to a better understanding of the nature of particles.
Every Feynman diagram has a motive attached to it, but what exactly the structure of a motive is saying about the structure of its related diagram remains anyone’s guess.
-Quanta article
I think this is a long, roundabout, way of saying, "math describes the world" and no matter what path is taken, math or physics, at the end of the day, you stand beholding the power of numbers!
I think this is a long, roundabout, way of saying, "math describes the world" and no matter what path is taken, math or physics, at the end of the day, you stand beholding the power of numbers! OP, thanks for the brain ache this morning!