Talk:Quantum electrodynamics

"Near the end of his life, Richard Feynman gave a series of lectures on QED intended for the lay public."

So that's what it is then, and that explains both the preponderance of non-technical lay interest in the subject and the lack of technical merit to any public discussions on it to be found. It's a hats-off-for-the-ladies-please-gentlemen spiel or high pressure sales pitch for theoretical physics in general, likening wishy-washy theories of particle physics to hard mathematical proofs with plenty of "true believers" planted in the audience to attack any hecklers or doubters. High energy physics takes a lot of money to research, first and foremost. Particle accelerators aren't cheap, and the physicists need taxes and government grant monies to keep the lights on at CERN and similar facilities.

The interests of intelligence and healthy skepticism rather than theoretical phsyics as nothing but barroom world records for the general public lead us to believe that if there's too much easy grant money on the table for particle physics, then fraudsters have easy access to nukes, and otherwise there is too much top secret government hush-hush which is just as bad.

We're facing a "labor nuke" from Europe.

Introduction to the constants for nonexperts

It's definitely a spiel when they tell us how stupid we are. Justina Colmena ~biz (talk) 16:48, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

This is absurd. Can someone close this topic? Oblibion123 (talk) 20:52, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

Feynman QED

Why does this article have an entire section dedicated to Feynman's explanation of it? The only source for the entire section is Feynman's book, that is not even a secondary source. If someone wanted a layperson explanation of QED, then they may as well just read his book than read a condensed summary on the Wikipedia page.

I propose that the section should be vastly reformed to a short one or two paragraphs with secondary sources explaining that Feynman wrote a famous secondary source for laypeople to understand; the current section feels far too long for its weight. Oblibion123 (talk) 20:50, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

mis-labeled Feynman diagram?

Is the “abscissa” of the first graphic (Feynman diagram) mis-labeled? In this orientation the horizontal axis is space, not time. Please pardon the interruption if I’m missing something here. ~2026-97286-1 (talk) 02:23, 13 February 2026 (UTC)