Talk:Tadpole (physics)

NO to merger

No to merging. absurd idea. Ouedbirdwatcher (talk) 20:22, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tag nixed. Discussion at Talk:Quantum electrodynamics#Mergefrom tadpole if we need it. - 2/0 (formerly Eldereft) (cont.) 20:34, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Spermion

Is it possible that the sentence in the research paper:

Physical Review’s editors rejected spermion.

is a joke? or (less likely) that they got it from us? We removed this claim (along with lollypop) just two years ago. Thanks, —Soap— 20:43, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To me, our original story seems more plausible than what we're linking to now. Imagine Coleman, the original author, publishing his big research paper and using the word tadpole to describe the shape of the graph. The journal reads the whole paper and rejects it just because of the one word, and then Coleman goes and says "Alllllrighty then, how about this word instead? Or THIS one? Are you happy now?" And they decide to give in.

Whereas the way we have it now, we claim that Coleman sent in an otherwise solidly grounded research paper that had the word spermion in the middle? Come on, guys, we know that's not real. —Soap— 20:46, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think "I don't believe it" should matter when there is a source by Coleman himself saying "A part of graph that is connected to the rest of the graph by one and only one line is called a tadpole. Physical Review’s editors rejected spermion.". Instead of shaping Wikipedia to what we want to believe, we could stay with the sources and write "Coleman claims" and link the source. Or do you believe, the University of Pittsburgh edited the lecture notes to include nonsense? 195.176.96.38 (talk) 12:59, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, I think Professor Coleman was simply making a light-hearted joke. He's obviously not around anymore to confirm either way, but the context suggests to me that he never intended his audience to actually believe that claim. —Soap— 09:58, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]