Talk:Penguin diagram

Merge with Feynman Diagram

This was a part of Feynman diagram, but I think it should be kept separate. There are a few types of Feynman diagrams which were important for understanding various effects:

1. Triangle diagrams (for the anomaly)
2. Seagull diagrams (for Schwinger terms)
3. Hexagon diagrams (for grav. anomaly)
4. Penguin diagrams (for CP stuff)

each of these classes probably deserves a short page with the relevant calculations and discussion of significance, while Feynman diagram should be reserved for a discussion of Feynman's formalism.Likebox (talk) 05:47, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Reference

It would be nice if the actual paper by Ellis would be cited

92.117.205.249 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:22, 16 February 2010 (UTC).

Different naming story

I have never been interested in Feynman diagrams of any type, but many years ago I heard the story that they were supposedly named that way as the result of some kind of challenge. A similar story is told here. I think it's sufficiently well known that it should be mentioned in the article, though not necessarily as fact. Hans Adler 08:14, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

The section "Origin of the name" is pretty much exactly that. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 17:45, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Oops. Sorry for my confusion. I had misremembered the story, didn't find it in that form in the article, looked for the version I remembered on the web, learned the actual story, and completely missed that this is already what's in the article. Maybe I should consider WP:RTV now... Hans Adler 17:58, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Image

The image being used in this article is cute, but the actual diagram is too hard to see. Can someone (Quilbert?) please lighten (i.e., "wash out") the image of the penguin in the background so the red diagram in the foreground is more readable? - dcljr (talk) 20:03, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

I made a new version. Is it OK like that? —Quilbert (talk) 09:40, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Much better. Thanks. - dcljr (talk) 17:31, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Oops. I just noticed that the number of bytes has more than quadrupled in the latest image (over the original version), apparently because it was saved at 100% quality. Sorry for doing this to you again, but could you possibly redo this with a more reasonable quality setting? (I see the original penguin image was saved at 95%, but anything down to 85% would probably be acceptable.) And while you're changing things [grin], I would humbly suggest that a slightly lighter penguin would be even better… - dcljr (talk) 17:49, 9 October 2017 (UTC)