Talk:Faraday effect

Error

The term "prodensity" is a likely error and is not defined. Yahoo has no hits on a search for it and the dictionary produces no results.Trojancowboy (talk) 00:26, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There seems to be an error corresponding to the direction of rotation! Corresponding to Singh p.44 the rotation should be clockwise if B||E and V>0.

Broken Link

Does someone know the destination for the broken link, which I just removed? It's

Scientific American Supplement Vol. XXV, No. 643 from 1888, article "The direct optical projection of electro-dynamic lines of force and other electro-dynamic phenomena" describing an experiment which apparently uses the Faraday Effect in order to directly visualise lines of force in a magnetic field (without the mess normally associated with using iron filings) ... unfortunately the first part of the article is not available online, so the exact materials and methods are not clear. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.178.86.66 (talk) 23:30, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Derivation

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)[reply]

be decomposed?

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)[reply]

Reference for Ionosphere effects

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)[reply]

Assessment comment

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 The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.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)

permeability or permittivity, or both?

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)[reply]

Faraday rotation figure

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)[reply]

If an existing figure is unclear or misleading, fix or replace it, not just add a new one leaving the article with two contradicting illustrations.
If/when you do so, make sure the new figure has the same annotations (as in the text) and does not have new, irrelevant ones. Or update the text accordingly.
Please remember that this is an encyclopedia, not a scientific paper or textbook. If the physics community has somehow managed to live with the imprecise (in your opinion) vision of the Faraday rotation for two hundred years, perhaps such a cartoon is sufficient for the casual reader of Wikipedia.
One may want to exercise caution and let the professional community (in addition to the peer review) respond to your very fresh paper. This is not a "hot news in the science" section, after all. If you absolutely sure this topic deserves attention, perhaps add a short to-the-point note in the text body with a reference to your new publication.

--Evgeny (talk) 08:04, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, please keep comments in chronological order. --Evgeny (talk) 08:07, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]