![]() | Text and/or other creative content from this version of Magnetic pole strength was copied or moved into Magnetic moment with this edit on 07 April 2012. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article uses both and for the magnetic moment. In cgs it probably makes more sense to use , but Jackson uses (in SI). My vote would be for on the basis that the magnetic moment is rarely used as a scalar quantity, so there shouldn't be ambiguity (with mass). Turtle47 ( talk) 12:24, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
I noted that the image Magnetic_ring_dipole_field_lines.svg (red field lines) seems to be slightly in error. The field lines seem to be circles, whereas that is not precisely the case for a dipole field. (Compare to the figure below it). Bdushaw ( talk) 03:05, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
I've thought about it, and will punt on the matter, if that's ok. You are likely right that the figure is not 100% correct in line density to field strength, but on the other hand it is not THAT in error I don't think. The region where the lines merge to form a continuous red gives an oval shape equivalent to what |H| shows. Insofar as wikipedia goes, I claim the figure is "good enough". Anyone attempting to use the figure for quantitative research has only himself to blame... I could upload the figure of field strength, if you like. I thought about including it in this article, but it seems not essential. Bdushaw ( talk) 23:02, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
The article does not specify how this quantity is measured.-- 79.119.209.81 ( talk) 15:59, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
In the units section of the main article, it states that units for magnetic dipole are N.m/T = A.m^2 = J/T.
I shrieked when I saw a torque of N.m converted to J. I'm a mechanical engineer, and for me, that is a huge no-no. You never convert torque to energy. Torque, of course, is meters cross-product newtons, whereas work is meters dotted with newtons. Our unit system does not carry along this vector operation aspect, so we have to know that we cannot interchange them. We represent torque as a vector, whereas work is a scalar. To my mind, it is fundamentally incorrect to convert newton-meters of torque to joules. In the end, units can be manipulated and the answer will come out the same, so if you guys tell me that in the magnetics world, you cover your eyes and commit this atrocity all the time for some reason, then fine. I'll simply not like it. But if you agree, then I'd like to delete the bit where it shows J/T. Kimaaron ( talk) 15:19, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
@ Kimaaron: RockMagnetist, TStein: Have added a short explanation in the "Units" section with source citation that may "resolve" this issue, or give a start to a satisfactory formulation. Sdc870 ( talk) 14:57, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
Here "m" is taken as "mj", whereas in the Wikipedia page "Magnetic quantum number" m is taken as "ml", with different meanings. Please reach an agreement between the two pages, or use the unambiguous notation mj, ml respectively. Grausvictor ( talk) 16:51, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
"Magnetic Quantum number" relates only to orbital angular momentum L, so using a j subscript is incorrect. Magnetic moment relates to total angular momentum J, which is equal to L+S. The second suggestion is correct, and has been applied to the "Magnetic Quantum Number" page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.252.1.101 ( talk) 19:58, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
funny talk: "If one had started from a differential definition" ... how about deleting these confusing lines with contradicting equations? Ra-raisch ( talk) 16:08, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
It occurs to me that the dipole moment is used for 3 very different cases corresponding roughly to 3 different size regimes:
Each of these regimes overlap but each also treat the magnetic dipole differently. I don't want to reorganize this article willy-nilly, especially when I am uncertain both what the proper way to reorganize it and how much time I will be able to dedicate to this. Any thoughts on this will be greatly appreciated. TStein ( talk) 06:33, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
I have no problem with your shortening of the section titles. The middle edit (Two models of ...) may be an issue, though. There are a large number of links to that particular section. I wouldn't mind fixing all of these links (I have fixed many of those links from an earlier change before) myself, except that I have the most generic settings for my editor. I am fairly certain there are tools to fix this but I have no clues where to look to find them or which tool to use. The what links here is useless as far as I can tell. TStein ( talk) 15:58, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
I've just discovered that magnetic pole strength redirects here to a heading that no longer exists. I've corrected that, but I have to say that I think the redirect into this article was a terrible idea. Look at it from the point of view of someone who has typed the term into the search box. They want to know about pole strength, not magnetic moment. So yes, now they are redirected to the right place they can learn that m=pl, but now they still have to go back to the top of the article and read the whole thing because now you have forced them to understand magnetic moment before they can understand pole strength. Spinning Spark 07:14, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
I need to know how a magnetic dipole behaves in an electric, not a magnetic, field. I suppose it precesses in some way, but not in identically the way that a magnetic dipole behaves in a magnetic field. Can anybody direct me to information on this? Slyfox4908 ( talk) 22:01, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
Theres a phrase in the introduction ;- "..and all other fractal expressions of electromagnetic energy". What in the dickens can that possibly mean? Theres no other reference to fractals in there. Looking on the net, this isn't a wingnut special, its a real thing, but the article doesn't expand what exactly is meant by that turn of phrase. As a non physicist, that phrase has thrown me on a loop, could someone please add something to explain what that means? Duckmonster ( talk) 08:02, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
"Intrinsic magnetic moments and spins of some elementary particles"
Is it a fake? Where You got such values from? 79.204.137.204 ( talk) 11:43, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
![]() | Text and/or other creative content from this version of Magnetic pole strength was copied or moved into Magnetic moment with this edit on 07 April 2012. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article uses both and for the magnetic moment. In cgs it probably makes more sense to use , but Jackson uses (in SI). My vote would be for on the basis that the magnetic moment is rarely used as a scalar quantity, so there shouldn't be ambiguity (with mass). Turtle47 ( talk) 12:24, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
I noted that the image Magnetic_ring_dipole_field_lines.svg (red field lines) seems to be slightly in error. The field lines seem to be circles, whereas that is not precisely the case for a dipole field. (Compare to the figure below it). Bdushaw ( talk) 03:05, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
I've thought about it, and will punt on the matter, if that's ok. You are likely right that the figure is not 100% correct in line density to field strength, but on the other hand it is not THAT in error I don't think. The region where the lines merge to form a continuous red gives an oval shape equivalent to what |H| shows. Insofar as wikipedia goes, I claim the figure is "good enough". Anyone attempting to use the figure for quantitative research has only himself to blame... I could upload the figure of field strength, if you like. I thought about including it in this article, but it seems not essential. Bdushaw ( talk) 23:02, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
The article does not specify how this quantity is measured.-- 79.119.209.81 ( talk) 15:59, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
In the units section of the main article, it states that units for magnetic dipole are N.m/T = A.m^2 = J/T.
I shrieked when I saw a torque of N.m converted to J. I'm a mechanical engineer, and for me, that is a huge no-no. You never convert torque to energy. Torque, of course, is meters cross-product newtons, whereas work is meters dotted with newtons. Our unit system does not carry along this vector operation aspect, so we have to know that we cannot interchange them. We represent torque as a vector, whereas work is a scalar. To my mind, it is fundamentally incorrect to convert newton-meters of torque to joules. In the end, units can be manipulated and the answer will come out the same, so if you guys tell me that in the magnetics world, you cover your eyes and commit this atrocity all the time for some reason, then fine. I'll simply not like it. But if you agree, then I'd like to delete the bit where it shows J/T. Kimaaron ( talk) 15:19, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
@ Kimaaron: RockMagnetist, TStein: Have added a short explanation in the "Units" section with source citation that may "resolve" this issue, or give a start to a satisfactory formulation. Sdc870 ( talk) 14:57, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
Here "m" is taken as "mj", whereas in the Wikipedia page "Magnetic quantum number" m is taken as "ml", with different meanings. Please reach an agreement between the two pages, or use the unambiguous notation mj, ml respectively. Grausvictor ( talk) 16:51, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
"Magnetic Quantum number" relates only to orbital angular momentum L, so using a j subscript is incorrect. Magnetic moment relates to total angular momentum J, which is equal to L+S. The second suggestion is correct, and has been applied to the "Magnetic Quantum Number" page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.252.1.101 ( talk) 19:58, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
funny talk: "If one had started from a differential definition" ... how about deleting these confusing lines with contradicting equations? Ra-raisch ( talk) 16:08, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
It occurs to me that the dipole moment is used for 3 very different cases corresponding roughly to 3 different size regimes:
Each of these regimes overlap but each also treat the magnetic dipole differently. I don't want to reorganize this article willy-nilly, especially when I am uncertain both what the proper way to reorganize it and how much time I will be able to dedicate to this. Any thoughts on this will be greatly appreciated. TStein ( talk) 06:33, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
I have no problem with your shortening of the section titles. The middle edit (Two models of ...) may be an issue, though. There are a large number of links to that particular section. I wouldn't mind fixing all of these links (I have fixed many of those links from an earlier change before) myself, except that I have the most generic settings for my editor. I am fairly certain there are tools to fix this but I have no clues where to look to find them or which tool to use. The what links here is useless as far as I can tell. TStein ( talk) 15:58, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
I've just discovered that magnetic pole strength redirects here to a heading that no longer exists. I've corrected that, but I have to say that I think the redirect into this article was a terrible idea. Look at it from the point of view of someone who has typed the term into the search box. They want to know about pole strength, not magnetic moment. So yes, now they are redirected to the right place they can learn that m=pl, but now they still have to go back to the top of the article and read the whole thing because now you have forced them to understand magnetic moment before they can understand pole strength. Spinning Spark 07:14, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
I need to know how a magnetic dipole behaves in an electric, not a magnetic, field. I suppose it precesses in some way, but not in identically the way that a magnetic dipole behaves in a magnetic field. Can anybody direct me to information on this? Slyfox4908 ( talk) 22:01, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
Theres a phrase in the introduction ;- "..and all other fractal expressions of electromagnetic energy". What in the dickens can that possibly mean? Theres no other reference to fractals in there. Looking on the net, this isn't a wingnut special, its a real thing, but the article doesn't expand what exactly is meant by that turn of phrase. As a non physicist, that phrase has thrown me on a loop, could someone please add something to explain what that means? Duckmonster ( talk) 08:02, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
"Intrinsic magnetic moments and spins of some elementary particles"
Is it a fake? Where You got such values from? 79.204.137.204 ( talk) 11:43, 22 March 2024 (UTC)