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

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)

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)

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


 * 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)
 * 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)


 * 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)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 09:34, 29 April 2016 (UTC)