I don’t buy mathematical equivalence as an argument against, in this case, since the whole point of the path integral formulation is that it’s mathematically equivalent but far simpler conceptually and computationally.
Idk the Nobel prize committee thought it wasn’t significant enough to give out a separate prize 🤷
I am not familiar enough with the particulars to have an informed opinion. My best guess is that in general statements to the effect of “yes X also made scientific contribution A but Y phrased it better’ overestimate the actual scientific counterfactual impact of Y. It generically weighs how well outsiders can understand the work too much vis a vis specialists/insiders who have enough hands-on experience that the value-add of a simpler/neater formalism is not that high (or even a distraction).
The reason Dick Feynmann is so much more well-known than Schwinger and Tomonaga surely must not be entirely unrelated with the magnetic charisma of Dick Feynmann.
I think they’re talking about a formulation with the same essential point having come up earlier? I’m personally not familiar with Schwinger’s formulation so cannot intelligently comment much. I’ll also note that the true significance of path integrals took a while to realize (at least going by a comment in Shankar’s Princples of Quantum Mechanics, a standard QM textbook, where the preface to the 2nd edition says something like “In the first edition I put a chapter on path integrals because I thought they were important even though most people don’t include them. Boy, they became really important. I’ve added 100 extra pages on path integrals”)
However, I’ll note that Feynmann diagrams are another example of a conceptual advancement that was huge. Though, it seems like the mathematical development of the perturbation series and the fundamental concept was already around. Furthermore Stueckelberg came up with something similar, but didn’t provide as good a way of mechanically translating perturbation expansion terms into diagrams, and didn’t have the path integral (this is additional evidence for counterfactualness of the path integral, if you can apparently get halfway to Feynmann diagrams without coming up with path integrals). Likewise the diagrams took a while to become standard.
Thus it seems likely that Feynmann was pretty counterfactual here. Plausibly others that may have come up with the notation may have dismissed it like the people that dismissed Feynmann.
Feynmann was also famously good at this sort of conceptual insight, and so I am willing to believe that his unique abilities were actually important here.
I don’t buy mathematical equivalence as an argument against, in this case, since the whole point of the path integral formulation is that it’s mathematically equivalent but far simpler conceptually and computationally.
Idk the Nobel prize committee thought it wasn’t significant enough to give out a separate prize 🤷
I am not familiar enough with the particulars to have an informed opinion. My best guess is that in general statements to the effect of “yes X also made scientific contribution A but Y phrased it better’ overestimate the actual scientific counterfactual impact of Y. It generically weighs how well outsiders can understand the work too much vis a vis specialists/insiders who have enough hands-on experience that the value-add of a simpler/neater formalism is not that high (or even a distraction).
The reason Dick Feynmann is so much more well-known than Schwinger and Tomonaga surely must not be entirely unrelated with the magnetic charisma of Dick Feynmann.
I think they’re talking about a formulation with the same essential point having come up earlier? I’m personally not familiar with Schwinger’s formulation so cannot intelligently comment much. I’ll also note that the true significance of path integrals took a while to realize (at least going by a comment in Shankar’s Princples of Quantum Mechanics, a standard QM textbook, where the preface to the 2nd edition says something like “In the first edition I put a chapter on path integrals because I thought they were important even though most people don’t include them. Boy, they became really important. I’ve added 100 extra pages on path integrals”)
However, I’ll note that Feynmann diagrams are another example of a conceptual advancement that was huge. Though, it seems like the mathematical development of the perturbation series and the fundamental concept was already around. Furthermore Stueckelberg came up with something similar, but didn’t provide as good a way of mechanically translating perturbation expansion terms into diagrams, and didn’t have the path integral (this is additional evidence for counterfactualness of the path integral, if you can apparently get halfway to Feynmann diagrams without coming up with path integrals). Likewise the diagrams took a while to become standard.
Thus it seems likely that Feynmann was pretty counterfactual here. Plausibly others that may have come up with the notation may have dismissed it like the people that dismissed Feynmann.
Feynmann was also famously good at this sort of conceptual insight, and so I am willing to believe that his unique abilities were actually important here.