Talk:Gyromagnetic ratio

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, which collaborates on articles related to physics.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the assessment scale. [FAQ]
???	This article has not yet received an importance rating within physics.
Help with this template Please rate this article, and then leave comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify its strengths and weaknesses.

How atoms/particles change the ratio? is it possible? - Unsigned

Please see WP:RD to get an answer to you question =) --mboverload@ 00:22, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Gyromagnetic" vs "Magnetogyric"

I received a note on my talk page from User:Gillen inquiring about the page move I completed above. Gillen's note:

We need to talk about this gyromagnetic ratio thing. I have never personally heard of the magnetogyric ratio until I had the unpleasant experience of looking at the Lande g factor page today. To say the least, this is disturbing. Please give me more justification for the change than simply some international chemistry reference. Physicists refer to this as gyromagnetic ratio, it appears that chemists think it is the magnetogyric ratio. I can list dozens of physics references that call this the gyromagnetic ratio....please explain to me why they are all wrong?

I'm replying here. I don't have any stake in where this page is; I completed the move because it seemed like a reasonable and cited request, and nobody had opposed after more than a week. Now someone has opposed, so I guess we should talk about it. It would be good to cite an authoritative reference citing each name, if two are in use. The article should be titled according to the most common usage, and the naming discrepancy should be discussed in the article.

All that said, I'm neither a chemist nor a physicist. The Google test gives "gyromagnetic" the edge by 301,000 to 42,100 I would tell the person who requested the move about this discussion, but the account doesn't seem to be active. I'll leave a note at Talk:IUPAC for opinions. Is there a corresponding body that standardizes physics terminology? -GTBacchus^(talk) 09:56, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

• Indeed, "magnetogyric" is never used in physics. I have never ever heard it before! Only "gyromagnetic" is used. The PDG (Particle Data Group) is an authoritative reference: http://pdg.lbl.gov/2007/reviews/g-2_s004219.pdf

In physics there is no question as to which word is the correct terminology, since the other one is unheard of (in my experience anyway). I suggest changing all instances of "magnetogyric" to "gyromagnetic" on this page. A note can be inserted saying "(also known as 'magnetogyric' in chemistry)". Rotiro 00:23, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

• In fact, since the current page name is "Gyromagnetic ratio" and the article acknowledges that this usage is more common, I will be bold and change all instances of "magnetogyric" to "gyromagnetic". Rotiro 00:26, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I think that's unobjectionable and long overdue. Steve 04:24, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

• Actually the best reference supporting the use of "gyromagnetic" over "magnetogyric" is probably the one already contained in the article itself - NIST, the National Institute of Standards and Technology: http://physics.nist.gov/cgi-bin/cuu/Value?eqgammae|search_for=gyromagnetic+ratio%20NIST

I disagree with the above rationale which cites IUPAC, since the gyromagnetic ratio is more a physics thing than a chemistry thing. Rotiro 00:37, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "physics references."

I couldnt find a body that standardizes physics nomenclature, but I did send you some references. And posted them on your talk page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gillen (talk • contribs) 22:22, November 15, 2006 (UTC)

Copied from my talk page:

There are literally thousands of papers that clearly and unambiguously indicate that Lande g-factor/g factor/ gyromagnetic ratio are all synonyms for the same thing. I am including a reference from an old paper that will clearly indicate this.

Rev. Mod. Phys. 34, 102–109 (1962) [Issue 1 – January 1962 ]

It is also clearly illustrated in Griffiths "Quantum Mechanics", as well as in Claude Cohen-Tannoudji's "Quantum Mechanics". FYI - Tannoudji is a Nobel Laureate and Griffiths is the most used undergraduate text that I know of. User:140.247.248.124

I've copied the reference information here so it can be worked into the article. I would say the first task is to include in the article discussion of the fact that two names are in common use by different sciences, and if it seems appropriate, we can always move the page back at some point, if it turns out that we find one spelling to be much more common than the other, preferably based on something surer than the "google test". -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:53, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Inconsistency with Larmor frequency page: "also known as Lange G-factor"?

This page indicates that the magnetogyric ratio is also known as the Lange G-factor. However, there are important factors that distinguish the two. On the Larmor frequency page, they are defined as proportional, with some important dimensionful factors. I'm inclined to believe the equation on the Larmor frequency page, as the equation makes sense unitwise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.64.37.157 (talk • contribs) 19:00, November 20, 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore, I believe it's inaccurate to say the magnietogyric ratio is a "unitless quantity" that gives the ratio between the two moments. When used in the context of the Larmor frequency and energy of nuclear spin excitations, it clearly has dimensions of Teslas/second. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.64.37.157 (talk • contribs) 19:02, November 20, 2006 (UTC)

These were fixed when I rewrote the page some time ago. Steve 04:24, 4 July 2007 (UTC)