Timeline for Feynman diagrams for eigenvalue perturbation theory
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
9 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oct 25, 2017 at 10:48 | comment | added | thedude | Here it is: physics.stackexchange.com/questions/364919/… | |
| Oct 25, 2017 at 10:43 | vote | accept | thedude | ||
| Oct 25, 2017 at 10:43 | comment | added | thedude | Ok, I will accept this answer and post a new question. Thanks. | |
| Oct 25, 2017 at 2:24 | comment | added | lcv | I saw your other question now and I can understand your point. The answer to the other question is “yes one can write down the general term” and you were right: the answer involves some kind of sums over partitions. | |
| Oct 25, 2017 at 2:15 | comment | added | lcv | If your question is “I would like to know what is the particular form of the n-th order term of the perturbation series” you can post a new question and I can give you a separate answer | |
| Oct 25, 2017 at 2:08 | comment | added | lcv | @thedude : Qmechanics can call those mnemonics the way he wants. Feynman diagrams traditionally are something else, and if you look at the Wikipedia page you can convince yourself. Anyway this is terminology. If you are interested in the set of rules to figure out the term at a given particular order one can probably come up with something. But there are actually simpler algebraic expressions. If you look at Kato’s book you will find more that what you want | |
| Oct 24, 2017 at 19:21 | comment | added | thedude | Your statement that "in a simple matrix setting Feynman diagrams cannot even be defined" is in strong disagreement with the answer by Qmechanic on this post: physics.stackexchange.com/questions/232574/… | |
| Oct 24, 2017 at 18:44 | history | edited | lcv | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
deleted 1 character in body
|
| Oct 24, 2017 at 18:34 | history | answered | lcv | CC BY-SA 3.0 |