The first really good quantum mechanics theory made compatible with special relativity was the Dirac equation.

And then came quantum electrodynamics to improve it: Dirac equation vs quantum electrodynamics.

TODO: does it use full blown QED, or just something intermediate?

www.youtube.com/watch?v=NtnsHtYYKf0 "Mercury and Relativity - Periodic Table of Videos" by Periodic Videos (2013). Doesn't give the key juicy details/intuition. Also mentioned on Wikipedia: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativistic_quantum_chemistry#Mercury

Adds special relativity to the Schrödinger equation, and the following conclusions come basically as a direct consequence of this!

Experiments explained:

- spontaneous emission coefficients.
- fine structure, notably for example Dirac equation solution for the hydrogen atom
- antimatter
- particle creation and annihilation

Experiments not explained: those that quantum electrodynamics explains like:See also: Dirac equation vs quantum electrodynamics.

- Lamb shift
- TODO: quantization of the electromagnetic field as photons?

The Dirac equation is a set of 4 partial differential equations on 4 complex valued wave functions. The full explicit form in Planck units is shown e.g. in Video 1. "Quantum Mechanics 12a - Dirac Equation I by ViaScience (2015)" at youtu.be/OCuaBmAzqek?t=1010:
Then as done at physics.stackexchange.com/questions/32422/qm-without-complex-numbers/557600#557600 from why are complex numbers used in the Schrodinger equation?, we could further split those equations up into a system of 8 equations on 8 real-valued functions.

$i∂_{t}⎣⎢⎢⎢⎡ ψ_{1}ψ_{2}ψ_{3}ψ_{4} ⎦⎥⎥⎥⎤ =−i∂_{x}⎣⎢⎢⎢⎡ ψ_{4}ψ_{3}ψ_{2}ψ_{1} ⎦⎥⎥⎥⎤ +∂_{y}⎣⎢⎢⎢⎡ −ψ_{4}ψ_{3}−ψ_{2}ψ_{1} ⎦⎥⎥⎥⎤ −i∂_{z}⎣⎢⎢⎢⎡ ψ_{3}−ψ_{4}ψ_{1}−ψ_{2} ⎦⎥⎥⎥⎤ +m⎣⎢⎢⎢⎡ ψ_{1}ψ_{2}−ψ_{3}−ψ_{4} ⎦⎥⎥⎥⎤ $

Do electrons spontaneously jump from high orbitals to lower ones emitting photons?

Explaining this was was one of the key initial achievements of the Dirac equation.

Yes, but this is not predicted by the Schrödinger equation, you need to go to the Dirac equation.

A critical application of this phenomena is laser.

See also:

- physics.stackexchange.com/questions/233330/why-do-electrons-jump-between-orbitals
- physics.stackexchange.com/questions/117417/quantum-mechanics-scattering-theory/522220#522220
- physics.stackexchange.com/questions/430268/stimulated-emission-how-can-giving-energy-to-electrons-make-them-decay-to-a-low/430288

TODO understand better, mentioned e.g. at Subtle is the Lord by Abraham Pais (1982) page 20, and is something that Einstein worked on.

Photon hits excited electron, makes that electron go down, and generates a new identical photon in the process, with the exact same:This is the basis of lasers.

- frequency
- polarization
- direction

Bibliography:

First postulated by Einstein in 1917 on his paper Zur Quantentheorie der Strahlung" ("On the Quantum Theory of Radiation") as a more elegant way to rederive Planck's law as part of the Einstein coefficients framework.

At that time there was no other physical evidence supporting the existence of the concept except that it looked more elegant.

Bibliography:

Predicted by the Dirac equation.

Can be easily seen from the solution of Equation "Expanded Dirac equation in Planck units" when the particle is at rest as shown at Video "Quantum Mechanics 12b - Dirac Equation II by ViaScience (2015)".

Predicted by the Dirac equation.

We've likely known since forever that photons are created: just turn on a light and see gazillion of them come out!

Photon creation is easy because photons are massless, so there is not minimum energy to create them.

The creation of other particles is much rarer however, and took longer to be discovered, one notable milestone being the discovery of the positron.

In the case of the electron, we need to start with at least enough energy for the mass of the electron positron pair. This requires a photon with wavelength in the picometer range, which is not common in the thermal radiation of daily life.

Can produce two entangled particles.

Described for example in lecture 1.

TODO, including why the Schrodinger equation is not.

The Dirac equation can be derived basically "directly" from the Representation theory of the Lorentz group for the spin half representation, this is shown for example at Physics from Symmetry by Jakob Schwichtenberg (2015) 6.3 "Dirac Equation".

The Diract equation is the spacetime symmetry part of the quantum electrodynamics Lagrangian, i.e. is describes how spin half particles behave without interactions. The full quantum electrodynamics Lagrangian can then be reached by adding the $U(1)$ internal symmetry.

As mentioned at spin comes naturally when adding relativity to quantum mechanics, this same method allows us to analogously derive the equations for other spin numbers.

Bibliography:

Bibliography:

- www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fu1BGGeyqHQ&list=PL54DF0652B30D99A4&index=63 "K6. The Pauli Equation" by doctorphys

A relativistic version of the Schrödinger equation.

Correctly describes spin 0 particles.

The most memorable version of the equation can be written as shown at Section "Klein-Gordon equation in Einstein notation" with Einstein notation and Planck units:

$∂_{i}∂_{i}ψ−m_{2}ψ=0$

Has some issues which are solved by the Dirac equation:

- it has a second time derivative of the wave function. Therefore, to solve it we must specify not only the initial value of the wave equation, but also the derivative of the wave equation,As mentioned at Advanced quantum mechanics by Freeman Dyson (1951) and further clarified at: physics.stackexchange.com/questions/340023/cant-the-negative-probabilities-of-klein-gordon-equation-be-avoided, this would lead to negative probabilities.
- the modulus of the wave function is not constant and therefore not always one, and therefore cannot be interpreted as a probability density anymore
- since we are working with the square of the energy, we have both positive and negative value solutions. This is also a features of the Dirac equation however.

Bibliography:

- Video "Quantum Mechanics 12a - Dirac Equation I by ViaScience (2015)" at youtu.be/OCuaBmAzqek?t=600
- An Introduction to QED and QCD by Jeff Forshaw (1997) 1.2 "Relativistic Wave Equations" and 1.4 "The Klein Gordon Equation" gives some key ideas
- 2011 PHYS 485 lecture videos by Roger Moore from the University of Alberta at around 7:30
- www.youtube.com/watch?v=WqoIW85xwoU&list=PL54DF0652B30D99A4&index=65 "L2. The Klein-Gordon Equation" by doctorphys
- sites.ualberta.ca/~gingrich/courses/phys512/node21.html from Advanced quantum mechanics II by Douglas Gingrich (2004)

The Klein-Gordon equation directly uses a more naive relativistic energy guess of $p_{2}+m_{2}$ squared.

But since this is quantum mechanics, we feel like making $p$ into the "momentum operator", just like in the Schrödinger equation.

But we don't really know how to apply the momentum operator twice, because it is a gradient, so the first application goes from a scalar field to the vector field, and the second one...

So we just cheat and try to use the laplace operator instead because there's some squares on it:

$H=∇_{2}+m_{2}$

But then, we have to avoid taking the square root to reach a first derivative in time, because we don't know how to take the square root of that operator expression.

So the Klein-Gordon equation just takes the approach of using this squared Hamiltonian instead.

Since it is a Hamiltonian, and comparing it to the Schrödinger equation which looks like:
taking the Hamiltonian twice leads to:

$Hψ=i∂t∂ψ $

$H_{2}ψ=−∂_{2}t∂_{2}ψ $

We can contrast this with the Dirac equation, which instead attempts to explicitly construct an operator which squared coincides with the relativistic formula: derivation of the Dirac equation.

Predicts fine structure.

Bibliography:

Spin is one of the defining properties of elementary particles, i.e. number that describes how an elementary particle behaves, much like electric charge and mass.

Possible values are half integer numbers: 0, 1/2, 1, 3/2, and so on.

The approach shown in this section: Section "Spin comes naturally when adding relativity to quantum mechanics" shows what the spin number actually means in general. As shown there, the spin number it is a direct consequence of having the laws of nature be Lorentz invariant. Different spin numbers are just different ways in which this can be achieved as per different Representation of the Lorentz group.

Video 1. "Quantum Mechanics 9a - Photon Spin and Schrodinger's Cat I by ViaScience (2013)" explains nicely how:

- incorporated into the Dirac equation as a natural consequence of special relativity corrections, but not naturally present in the Schrödinger equation, see also: the Dirac equation predicts spin
- photon spin can be either linear or circular
- the linear one can be made from a superposition of circular ones
- straight antennas produce linearly polarized photos, and Helical antennas circularly polarized ones
- a jump between 2s and 2p in an atom changes angular momentum. Therefore, the photon must carry angular momentum as well as energy.
- cannot be classically explained, because even for a very large estimate of the electron size, its surface would have to spin faster than light to achieve that magnetic momentum with the known electron charge
- as shown at Video "Quantum Mechanics 12b - Dirac Equation II by ViaScience (2015)", observers in different frames of reference see different spin states

- Stern-Gerlach experiment
- fine structure split in energy levels
- anomalous Zeeman effect
- of a more statistical nature, but therefore also macroscopic and more dramatically observable:
- ferromagnetism
- Bose-Einstein statistics vs Fermi-Dirac statistics. A notable example is the difference in superfluid transition temperature between superfluid helium-3 and superfluid helium-4.

Originally done with (neutral) silver atoms in 1921, but even clearer theoretically was the hydrogen reproduction in 1927 by T. E. Phipps and J. B. Taylor.

The hydrogen experiment was apparently harder to do and the result is less visible, TODO why: physics.stackexchange.com/questions/33021/why-silver-atoms-were-used-in-stern-gerlach-experiment

Needs an inhomogenous magnetic field to move the atoms up or down: magnetic dipole in an inhomogenous magnetic field. TODO how it is generated?

Basic component in spintronics, used in both giant magnetoresistance

I like relativistic quantum mechanics.

Best mathematical explanation: Section "Spin comes naturally when adding relativity to quantum mechanics".

Physics from Symmetry by Jakob Schwichtenberg (2015) chapter 3.9 "Elementary particles" has an amazing summary of the preceding chapters the spin value has a relation to the representations of the Lorentz group, which encodes the spacetime symmetry that each particle observes. These symmetries can be characterized by small integer numbers:

As usual, we don't know why there aren't elementary particles with other spins, as we could construct them.

Bibliography:

Leads to the Klein-Gordon equation.

Leads to the Dirac equation.

Leads to the Proca equation.

Theorized for the graviton.

More interestingly, how is that implied by the Stern-Gerlach experiment?

physics.stackexchange.com/questions/266359/when-we-say-electron-spin-is-1-2-what-exactly-does-it-mean-1-2-of-what/266371#266371 suggests that half could either mean:

- at limit of large
`l`

for the Schrödinger equation solution for the hydrogen atom the difference between each angular momentum is twice that of the eletron's spin. Not very satisfactory. - it comes directly out of the Dirac equation. This is satisfactory. :-)

Initially a phenomenological guess to explain the periodic table. Later it was apparently proven properly with the spin-statistics theorem, physics.stackexchange.com/questions/360140/theoretical-proof-of-paulis-exclusion-principle.

And it was understood more and more that basically this is what prevents solids from collapsing into a single nucleus, not electrical repulsion: electron degeneracy pressure!

Bibliography:

- www.youtube.com/watch?v=EK_6OzZAh5k How Electron Spin Makes Matter Possible by PBS Space Time (2021)

The name actually comes from "any". Amazing.

All known anyons are quasiparticles.

On particle exchange:
so it is a generalization of bosons and fermions which have $θ=0$ and $θ=π$ respectively.

$ψ=e_{θi}ψ$

Key physical experiment: fractional quantum Hall effect.

Exotic and hard to find experimentally.

Video "The Biggest Ideas in the Universe | 17. Matter by Sean Carroll (2020)" at youtu.be/dQWn9NzvX4s?t=3707 says that no one has ever been able to come up with an intuitive reason for the proof.

$L=ψˉ (iℏc∂/−mc_{2})ψ$

- $∂$: Feynman slash notation
- $ψˉ $: Dirac adjoint

Remember that $ψ$ is a 4-vetor, gamma matrices are 4x4 matrices, so the whole thing comes down to a dot product of two 4-vectors, with a modified $ψ$ by matrix multiplication/derivatives, and the result is a scalar, as expected for a Lagrangian.

Like any other Lagrangian, you can then recover the Dirac equation, which is the corresponding equations of motion, by applying the Euler-Lagrange equation to the Lagrangian.

Theoretical framework on which quantum field theories are based, theories based on framework include:so basically the entire Standard Model

The basic idea is that there is a field for each particle particle type.

E.g. in QED, one for the electron and one for the photon: physics.stackexchange.com/questions/166709/are-electron-fields-and-photon-fields-part-of-the-same-field-in-qed.

And then those fields interact with some Lagrangian.

One way to look at QFT is to split it into two parts:Then interwined with those two is the part "OK, how to solve the equations, if they are solvable at all", which is an open problem: Yang-Mills existence and mass gap.

- deriving the Lagrangians of the Standard Model: why do symmetries such as SU(3), SU(2) and U(1) matter in particle physics?s. This is the easier part, since the lagrangians themselves can be understood with not very advanced mathematics, and derived beautifully from symmetry constraints
- the qantization of fields. This is the hard part Ciro Santilli is unable to understand, TODO mathematical formulation of quantum field theory.

There appear to be two main equivalent formulations of quantum field theory:

TODO holy crap, even this is hard to understand/find a clear definition of.

The Dirac equation, OK, is a partial differential equation, so we can easily understand its definition with basic calculus. We may not be able to solve it efficiently, but at least we understand it.

But what the heck is the mathematical model for a quantum field theory? TODO someone was saying it is equivalent to an infinite set of PDEs somehow. Investigate. Related:

The path integral formulation might actually be the most understandable formulation, as shown at Richard Feynman Quantum Electrodynamics Lecture at University of Auckland (1979).

The formulation of QFT also appears to be a form of infinite-dimentional calculus.

Quantum electrodynamics by Lifshitz et al. 2nd edition (1982) chapter 1. "The uncertainty principle in the relativistic case" contains an interesting idea:

The foregoing discussion suggests that the theory will not consider the time dependence of particle interaction processes. It will show that in these processes there are no characteristics precisely definable (even within the usual limitations of quantum mechanics); the description of such a process as occurring in the course of time is therefore just as unreal as the classical paths are in non-relativistic quantum mechanics. The only observable quantities are the properties (momenta, polarizations) of free particles: the initial particles which come into interaction, and the final particles which result from the process.

The term and idea was first introduced initialized by Hermann Weyl when he was working on combining electromagnetism and general relativity to formulate Maxwell's equations in curved spacetime in 1918 and published as Gravity and electricity by Hermann Weyl (1918). Based on perception that $U(1)$ symmetry implies charge conservation. The same idea was later adapted for quantum electrodynamics, a context in which is has even more impact.

A random field you add to make something transform locally the way you want. See e.g.: Video "Deriving the qED Lagrangian by Dietterich Labs (2018)".

Yup, this one Focks you up.

Second quantization also appears to be useful not only for relativistic quantum mechanics, but also for condensed matter physics. The reason is that the basis idea is to use the number occupation basis. This basis is:

- convenient for quantum field theory because of particle creation and annihilation changes the number of particles all the time
- convenient for condensed matter physics because there you have a gazillion particles occupying entire energy bands

Bibliography:

- www.youtube.com/watch?v=MVqOfEYzwFY "How to Visualize Quantum Field Theory" by ZAP Physics (2020). Has 1D simulations on a circle. Starts towards the right direction, but is a bit lacking unfortunately, could go deeper.

Basically a synonym for second quantization.

This one might actually be understandable! It is what Richard Feynman starts to explain at: Richard Feynman Quantum Electrodynamics Lecture at University of Auckland (1979).

The difficulty is then proving that the total probability remains at 1, and maybe causality is hard too.

The path integral formulation can be seen as a generalization of the double-slit experiment to infinitely many slits.

Feynman first stared working it out for non-relativistic quantum mechanics, with the relativistic goal in mind, and only later on he attained the relativistic goal.

TODO why intuitively did he take that approach? Likely is makes it easier to add special relativity.

This approach more directly suggests the idea that quantum particles take all possible paths.

As mentioned at: physics.stackexchange.com/questions/212726/a-quantum-particle-moving-from-a-to-b-will-take-every-possible-path-from-a-to-b/212790#212790, classical gravity waves for example also "take all possible paths". This is just what waves look like they are doing.

Thought experiment that illustrates the path integral formulation of quantum field theory.

Mentioned for example in quantum field theory in a nutshell by Anthony Zee (2010) page 8.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=WB8r7CU7clk&list=PLUl4u3cNGP60TvpbO5toEWC8y8w51dtvm by Iain Stewart. Basically starts by explaining how quantum field theory is so generic that it is hard to get any numerical results out of it :-)

But in particular, we want to describe those subtheories in a way that we can reach arbitrary precision of the full theory if desired.

- www.youtube.com/watch?v=-_qNKbwM_eE Unsolved: Yang-Mills existence and mass gap by J Knudsen (2019). Gives 10 key points, but the truly hard ones are too quick. He knows the thing though.

Theory that describes electrons and photons really well, and as Feynman puts it "accounts very precisely for all physical phenomena we have ever observed, except for gravity and nuclear physics" ("including the laughter of the crowd" ;-)).

Learning it is one of Ciro Santilli's main intellectual fetishes.

While Ciro acknowledges that QED is intrinsically challenging due to the wide range or requirements (quantum mechanics, special relativity and electromagnetism), Ciro feels that there is a glaring gap in this moneyless market for a learning material that follows the Middle Way as mentioned at: the missing link between basic and advanced. Richard Feynman Quantum Electrodynamics Lecture at University of Auckland (1979) is one of the best attempts so far, but it falls a bit too close to the superficial side of things, if only Feynman hadn't assumed that the audience doesn't know any mathematics...

The funny thing is that when Ciro Santilli's mother retired, learning it (or as she put it: "how photons and electrons interact") was also one of her retirement plans. She is a pharmacist by training, and doesn't know much mathematics, and her English was somewhat limited. Oh, she also wanted to learn how photosynthesis works (possibly not fully understood by science as that time, 2020). Ambitious old lady!!!

Experiments: quantum electrodynamics experiments.

Combines special relativity with more classical quantum mechanics, but further generalizing the Dirac equation, which also does that: Dirac equation vs quantum electrodynamics. The name "relativistic" likely doesn't need to appear on the title of QED because Maxwell's equations require special relativity, so just having "electro-" in the title is enough.

Before QED, the most advanced theory was that of the Dirac equation, which was already relativistic but TODO what was missing there exactly?

As summarized at: youtube.com/watch?v=_AZdvtf6hPU?t=305 Quantum Field Theory lecture at the African Summer Theory Institute 1 of 4 by Anthony Zee (2004):

- classical mechanics describes large and slow objects
- special relativity describes large and fast objects (they are getting close to the speed of light, so we have to consider relativity)
- classical quantum mechanics describes small and slow objects.
- QED describes objects that are both small and fast

That video also mentions the interesting idea that:Therefore, for small timescales, energy can vary a lot. But mass is equivalent to energy. Therefore, for small time scale, particles can appear and disappear wildly.

- in special relativity, we have the mass-energy equivalence
- in quantum mechanics, thinking along the time-energy uncertainty principle, $ΔE∼Δt1 $

QED is the first quantum field theory fully developed. That framework was later extended to also include the weak interaction and strong interaction. As a result, it is perhaps easier to just Google for "Quantum Field Theory" if you want to learn QED, since QFT is more general and has more resources available generally.

Like in more general quantum field theory, there is on field for each particle type. In quantum field theory, there are only two fields to worry about:

- photon field
- electromagnetism field

Experiments explained by QED but not by the Dirac equation:

- Lamb shift: by far the most famous one
- hyperfine structure TODO confirm
- anomalous magnetic dipole moment of the electron

2s/2p energy split in the hydrogen emission spectrum, not predicted by the Dirac equation, but explained by quantum electrodynamics, which is one of the first great triumphs of that theory.

Note that for atoms with multiple electrons, 2s/2p shifts are expected: Why does 2s have less energy than 1s if they have the same principal quantum number?. The surprise was observing that on hydrogen which only has one electron.

Initial experiment: Lamb-Retherford experiment.

On the return from the train from the Shelter Island Conference in New York, Hans Bethe managed to do a non-relativistic calculation of the Lamb shift. He then published as The Electromagnetic Shift of Energy Levels by Hans Bethe (1947) which is still paywalled as of 2021, fuck me: journals.aps.org/pr/abstract/10.1103/PhysRev.72.339 by Physical Review.

The Electromagnetic Shift of Energy Levels Freeman Dyson (1948) published on Physical Review is apparently a relativistic analysis of the same: journals.aps.org/pr/abstract/10.1103/PhysRev.73.617 also paywalled as of 2021.

TODO how do the infinities show up, and how did people solve them?

www.mdpi.com/2624-8174/2/2/8/pdf History and Some Aspects of the Lamb Shift by G. Jordan Maclay (2019)

Published as "Fine Structure of the Hydrogen Atom by a Microwave Method" by Willis Lamb and Robert Retherford (1947) on Physical Review. This one actually has open accesses as of 2021, miracle! journals.aps.org/pr/pdf/10.1103/PhysRev.72.241

Microwave technology was developed in World War II for radar, notably at the MIT Radiation Laboratory. Before that, people were using much higher frequencies such as the visible spectrum. But to detect small energy differences, you need to look into longer wavelengths.

This experiment was fundamental to the development of quantum electrodynamics. As mentioned at Genius: Richard Feynman and Modern Physics by James Gleick (1994) chapter "Shrinking the infinities", before the experiment, people already knew that trying to add electromagnetism to the Dirac equation led to infinities using previous methods, and something needed to change urgently. However for the first time now the theorists had one precise number to try and hack their formulas to reach, not just a philosophical debate about infinities, and this led to major breakthroughs. The same book also describes the experiment briefly as:

Willis Lamb had just shined a beam of microwaves onto a hot wisp of hydrogen blowing from an oven.

It is two pages and a half long.

They were at Columbia University in the Columbia Radiation Laboratory. Robert was Willis' graduate student.

Previous less experiments had already hinted at this effect, but they were too imprecise to be sure.

Richard Feynman Quantum Electrodynamics Lecture at University of Auckland (1979) mentions it several times.

This was one of the first two great successes of quantum electrodynamics, the other one being the Lamb shift.

In youtu.be/UKbp85zpdcY?t=52 from freeman Dyson Web of Stories interview (1998) Dyson mentions that the original key experiment was from Kusch and Foley from Columbia University, and that in 1948, Julian Schwinger reached the correct value from his calculations.

Apparently first published at The Magnetic Moment of the Electron by Kusch and Foley (1948).

Bibliography:

- www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ix-3LQhElvU Anomalous Magnetic Moment Of The Electron | One Loop Quantum Correction | Quantum Electrodynamics by Dietterich Labs (2019)

Published on Physical Review by Polykarp Kusch and Foley.

journals.aps.org/pr/abstract/10.1103/PhysRev.74.250, paywall as of 2021.

TODO: in high level terms, why is QED more general than just solving the Dirac equation, and therefore explaining quantum electrodynamics experiments?

Also, is it just a bunch of differential equation (like the Dirac equation itself), or does it have some other more complicated mathematical formulation, as seems to be the case? Why do we need something more complicated than

Advanced quantum mechanics by Freeman Dyson (1951) mentions:

A Relativistic Quantum Theory of a Finite Number of Particles is Impossible.

Bibliography:

- physics.stackexchange.com/questions/101307/dirac-equation-in-qft-vs-relativistic-qm
- physics.stackexchange.com/questions/44188/what-is-the-relativistic-particle-in-a-box/44309#44309 says:
By several reasons explained in textbooks, the Dirac equation is not a valid wavefunction equation. You can solve it and find solutions, but those solutions cannot be interpreted as wavefunctions for a particle

- physics.stackexchange.com/questions/64206/why-is-the-dirac-equation-not-used-for-calculations
- www.physicsforums.com/threads/is-diracs-equation-still-useful-after-qed-is-developed.663994/

$L_{QED}=ψˉ (iℏcD/−mc_{2})ψ−4μ_{0}1 F_{μν}F_{μν}$

- $F$ is the electromagnetic tensor

Note that this is the sum of the:Note that the relationship between $ψ$ and $F$ is not explicit. However, if we knew what type of particle we were talking about, e.g. electron, then the knowledge of psi would also give the charge distribution and therefore $F$

- Dirac Lagrangian, which only describes the "inertia of bodies" part of the equation
- the electromagnetic interaction term $4μ_{0}1 F_{μν}F_{μν}$, which describes term describes forces

As mentioned at the beginning of Quantum Field Theory lecture notes by David Tong (2007):

- by "Lagrangian" we mean Lagrangian density
- the generalized coordinates of the Lagrangian are fields

Like the rest of the Standard Model Lagrangian, this can be split into two parts:

- spacetime symmetry: reaches the derivation of the Dirac equation, but has no interactions
- add the $U(1)$ internal symmetry to add interactions, which reaches the full equation

TODO find/create decent answer.

I think the best answer is something along:

- local symmetries of the Lagrangian imply conserved currents. $U(1)$ gives conserved charges.
- OK now. We want a local $U(1)$ symmetry. And we also want:Given all of that, the most obvious and direct thing we reach a guess at the quantum electrodynamics Lagrangian is Video "Deriving the qED Lagrangian by Dietterich Labs (2018)"
- Dirac equation: quantum relativistic Newton's laws that specify what forces do to the fields
- electromagnetism: specifies what causes forces based on currents. But not what it does to masses.

A basic non-precise intuition is that a good model of reality is that electrons do not "interact with one another directly via the electromagnetic field".

A better model happens to be the quantum field theory view that the electromagnetic field interacts with the photon field but not directly with itself, and then the photon field interacts with parts of the electromagnetic field further away.

The more precise statement is that the photon field is a gauge field of the electromagnetic force under local U(1) symmetry, which is described by a Lie group. TODO understand.

This idea was first applied in general relativity, where Einstein understood that the "force of gravity" can be understood just in terms of symmetry and curvature of space. This was later applied o quantum electrodynamics and the entire Standard Model.

From Video "Lorenzo Sadun on the "Yang-Mills and Mass Gap" Millennium problem":

- www.youtube.com/watch?v=pCQ9GIqpGBI&t=1663s mentions this idea first came about from Hermann Weyl.
- youtu.be/pCQ9GIqpGBI?t=2827 mentions that in that case the curvature is given by the electromagnetic tensor.

Bibliography:

- www.youtube.com/watch?v=qtf6U3FfDNQ Symmetry and Quantum Electrodynamics (The Standard Model Part 1) by ZAP Physics (2021)
- www.youtube.com/watch?v=OQF7kkWjVWM The Symmetry and Simplicity of the Laws of Nature and the Higgs Boson by Juan Maldacena (2012). Meh, also too basic.

I think they are a tool to calculate the probability of different types of particle decays and particle collision outcomes. TODO Minimal example of that.

And they can be derived from a more complete quantum electrodynamics formulation via perturbation theory.

At Richard Feynman Quantum Electrodynamics Lecture at University of Auckland (1979), an intuitive explanation of them in termes of sum of products of propagators is given.

- www.youtube.com/watch?v=fG52mXN-uWI The Secrets of Feynman Diagrams | Space Time by PBS Space Time (2017)

No, but why?

What they presented on richard Feynman's first seminar in 1941. Does not include quantum mechanics it seems.