Talk:Bhabha scattering

Differential cross section

Is the change from d sigma / d Omega to d sigma / d cos(theta) correct? I don't have time to check it right now. We should also say something about how we're neglecting Z boson exchange and also the electron mass. HEL 16:53, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, at least in Peskin it's dsigma/d cos(theta)JabberWok 01:57, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Off topic stuff

In the 'Uses' section, bullet point two: the second part should be removed, surely? It's just one of many reasons why having a precise luminosity measurement is a Good Thing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.172.169.33 (talk) 14:22, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

error in Scattering term

Hi, the gamma indexes are the same all over where there need to change to \_mu and \_nu (its only \_mu now) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.66.136.90 (talk) 08:22, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Feynman diagrams

Why don't the diagrams in this page follow the standard arrow convention? Dauto (talk) 02:44, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Standard convention seems to be to draw antifermions as arrows pointing backwards in time, which is not the case. Though it must be said that since antiparticles can be imagined as the regular particles going backwards in time the way it is drawn makes sense: An electron with an arrow backwards in time should be a positron, a positron travelling forwards is obviously just a positron, but a positron travelling backwards in time is an electron again - so the way this is drawn seems to help understanding. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.215.5.255 (talk • contribs) 13:42, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is confusing. If the time axis is pointing upwards in the diagram the standard notation would be electron on the bottom left and positron bottom right of the diagram. Very confusing as you currently have it. 65.32.241.94 (talk) 02:20, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The standard convention is to draw the arrow the opposite way for anti-particles, so the arrows on the diagrams here are incorrect for the positrons. I can provide a corrected SVG diagram, if I can figure out how to upload a revision of the diagram used here. --Eric Myers 14:06, 4 May 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eric Myers (talk • contribs)

Need for Empirical data

Suggestion: that someone with the necessary specialist knowledge add: (a) some plots of empirical data, and (b) explanations of the features and trends visible in such plots. Doing so would complement readers' understanding of the topic. As it is now, the treatment is primarily devoted to mathematical derivation of the theory, and the explanation is poorly developed. Thank you John Pons (talk) 09:08, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Bhabha scattering/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Hello,

Which convention is used for the signature ? It seems that it is -+++, which is rather uncommon and a bit strange... Cause it seems that there is confusion with the +--- convention (used in Peskin's).

198.129.218.216 23:04, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

J. (student)

Last edited at 23:04, 31 May 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 09:34, 29 April 2016 (UTC)