On the interpretation of Feynman diagrams, or, did the LHC experiments observe H → γγ?

European Journal for Philosophy of Science 9 (2):20 (2019)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

According to the received view Feynman diagrams are a bookkeeping device in complex perturbative calculations. Thus, they do not provide a representation or model of the underlying physical process. This view is in apparent tension with scientific practice in high energy physics, which analyses its data in terms of “channels”. For example the Higgs discovery was based on the observation of the decay H → γγ – a process which can be easily represented by the corresponding Feynman diagrams. I take issue with this tension and show that on closer analysis the story of the Higgs discovery should be told differently.

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 91,438

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Pictures and pedagogy: The role of diagrams in Feynman's early lectures.Ari Gross - 2012 - Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part B: Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics 43 (3):184-194.
Why feynman diagrams represent.Letitia Meynell - 2008 - International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 22 (1):39 – 59.
Interpreting Feynman diagrams as visualized models.Adrian Wüthrich - 2012 - Spontaneous Generations 6 (1):172-181.
How Do Feynman Diagrams Work?James Robert Brown - 2018 - Perspectives on Science 26 (4):423-442.
Introduction.James Robert Brown - 2018 - Perspectives on Science 26 (4):419-422.

Analytics

Added to PP
2018-12-31

Downloads
39 (#402,342)

6 months
4 (#790,778)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Citations of this work

I ain’t afraid of no ghost.John Dougherty - 2021 - Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 88 (C):70-84.

Add more citations