![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
Does someone know the destination for the broken link, which I just removed? It's
Does anyone know how to derive this equation, or a source where it is derived? 144.173.6.74 ( talk) 11:05, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
The third paragraph of the lead is particularly jargony. In particular, despite personal experience in the field, I can't make sense the phrase "This resonance causes waves to be decomposed...". Spiel496 ( talk) 17:02, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
I've found this article on the ITU site: http://www.itu.int/dms_pubrec/itu-r/rec/p/FR-REC-P.531-11-201202-I!!MSW-E.docx
though I'm not so sure how well it actually concerns itself with this particular problem
62.145.70.245 (
talk)
16:42, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Faraday effect/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.
This sentence of the article...
"This effect occurs in most optically transparent dielectric materials (including liquids) when they are subject to strong magnetic fields." ...describes the use of "dielectric" materials. Is this correct? Shouldn't it be "diamagnetic" materials instead? |
Last edited at 00:08, 12 March 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 14:57, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
It is rather unusual for optical phenomena to be described in terms of permeability changes, and the reference provided does not deal with optical phenomena at all (it's about microwaves). If we look in a typical derivation of optical Faraday rotation (such as the Landau & Lifshitz volume on Electrodynamics), it exclusively involves a permittivity tensor while the permeability stays at 1. That's not to say that the permeability approach is wrong, it's just inapplicable for the usual case. -- Nanite ( talk) 08:58, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
Figure removed on 17:49, 12 July 2021 with comment "The image adds nothing compared to the one in the section above" This figure adds important clarifications for an astrophysical scenario that are not present in the other figure. These include noting the explicit locations of source and observer and including the direction as it would appear in the sky when propagating from an astrophysical source. This is ambiguous in the other figure. Astrogirlwest ( talk) 18:14, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
Does someone know the destination for the broken link, which I just removed? It's
Does anyone know how to derive this equation, or a source where it is derived? 144.173.6.74 ( talk) 11:05, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
The third paragraph of the lead is particularly jargony. In particular, despite personal experience in the field, I can't make sense the phrase "This resonance causes waves to be decomposed...". Spiel496 ( talk) 17:02, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
I've found this article on the ITU site: http://www.itu.int/dms_pubrec/itu-r/rec/p/FR-REC-P.531-11-201202-I!!MSW-E.docx
though I'm not so sure how well it actually concerns itself with this particular problem
62.145.70.245 (
talk)
16:42, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Faraday effect/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.
This sentence of the article...
"This effect occurs in most optically transparent dielectric materials (including liquids) when they are subject to strong magnetic fields." ...describes the use of "dielectric" materials. Is this correct? Shouldn't it be "diamagnetic" materials instead? |
Last edited at 00:08, 12 March 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 14:57, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
It is rather unusual for optical phenomena to be described in terms of permeability changes, and the reference provided does not deal with optical phenomena at all (it's about microwaves). If we look in a typical derivation of optical Faraday rotation (such as the Landau & Lifshitz volume on Electrodynamics), it exclusively involves a permittivity tensor while the permeability stays at 1. That's not to say that the permeability approach is wrong, it's just inapplicable for the usual case. -- Nanite ( talk) 08:58, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
Figure removed on 17:49, 12 July 2021 with comment "The image adds nothing compared to the one in the section above" This figure adds important clarifications for an astrophysical scenario that are not present in the other figure. These include noting the explicit locations of source and observer and including the direction as it would appear in the sky when propagating from an astrophysical source. This is ambiguous in the other figure. Astrogirlwest ( talk) 18:14, 12 July 2021 (UTC)