Anonymous at Wed, 13 Nov 2024 06:23:19 UTC No. 16473025

how so? it's more akin to light traveling slower than c

Anonymous at Wed, 13 Nov 2024 06:28:03 UTC No. 16473028

>>16473023
Its just an electron emitting and then reabsorbing a photon and then going on its merry way. Which i think is allowed "off shelf" as they say.

Anonymous at Wed, 13 Nov 2024 06:36:31 UTC No. 16473036

>>16473028
And how exactly does an electron emit a photon (i.e. lose energy), slow down, and then somehow catch up to its own photon?

Anonymous at Wed, 13 Nov 2024 06:47:45 UTC No. 16473045

>>16473028
Does an electron have a briefcase in which it stores photons while en route and then tosses them out when the bag gets too heavy?

Anonymous at Wed, 13 Nov 2024 06:50:01 UTC No. 16473047

>>16473045
>Does an electron have a briefcase in which it stores photon
yes
>>16473036
>And how exactly does an electron emit a photon
it just does

Anonymous at Wed, 13 Nov 2024 06:57:35 UTC No. 16473058

>>16473047
Does an electron get bigger when absorb photon, like pac man or hungry hungry hippo, then spit it out? Or Mario eating a mushroom

Anonymous at Wed, 13 Nov 2024 17:07:53 UTC No. 16473543

>>16473023
It's just a depiction of how the electromagnetic field of the electron affects its mass. A free electron does not emit photons and reabsorb them.

Anonymous at Wed, 13 Nov 2024 19:43:49 UTC No. 16473757

>>16473023
This op >>16473543. Dyson mentioned that when using feynman diagrams the infinite sum when you do all possible contributions would diverge to infinity (even though the first couple terms gives us incredibly accurate predictions). For some reason, this way of doing math is incomplete, so rather than taking these diagrams literally (when Feynman first introduce his ideas at Oppenheimer's conference, everyone hated it because stuff like this seemed to violate known laws), think of it more as a sort of incomplete way to math out predictions, so interpret with caution.

I think if you tried doing this with neutrons instead of electrons, they fail, so instead you make predictions using lattice theory mathematics and with it you get accurate predictions. So these diagrams aren't the "final answer".

Anonymous at Wed, 13 Nov 2024 21:15:59 UTC No. 16473855

>>16473757
That sounds more like a mathematical bounding issue than a concrete argument against their literal interpretation. How is this not analagous to the UV Catastrophe, where the equations were very accurate in the IR, but needed an additional bounding condition (which greatly contributed to the discovery of quantization) for the UV?