Talk:Interplanetary magnetic field

Requested move (June 2011)

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. 65.94.47.63 (talk) 04:38, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

{{Requested move/dated|Interplanetary magnetic field}}

Interplanetary Magnetic Field → Interplanetary magnetic field – It appears the term is being presented in title case as if it were a proper noun simply because it has an acronym, which is not correct. Similar terms such as solar wind and interplanetary medium are not treated as proper nouns. WolfmanSF (talk) 03:50, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've put in db-move request. T R 08:08, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Structure required

The IMF/HMF (really the term HMF should be used) is sufficiently complex and important to merit its own page, but at present the detail is sparse. Some section heading might help people identifiy where they can contribute. I suggest:

HMF formation

I've added a couple of very brief sentences on that front

HMF structure

Parker spiral, latitudinal structure, heliospheric current sheet, corotating interaction regions, heliopause, etc

Fine-scale structure

Turbulence, CMEs, etc

Time variation

Stepping up from seconds to millennia: turbulent eddies, rotational sector structure, solar cycles, long-term variation from geomagnetic/sunspot/radionuclide data.

Heliophysics (talk) 09:47, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

IMF vs. HMF Dispute

The notion that the interplanetary magnetic field (IMF) is now more commonly referred to as the heliospheric magnetic field (HMF) is poorly founded. Yes, the two terms describe the same phenomena, but the academic consensus is (at best) apathetic towards the distinction.

IMF is by far the most used term across the history of its research, with roughly 6 times the usage of HMF in publication (per Google Scholar search). Recent work in the field (as referenced using arXiv) appears to favor HMF slightly more than historical research, but IMF is still the term used 4 times as often.

My best guess for the claim that HMF is somehow "more commonly used" is a 2001 paper by NF Ness[1] which makes that claim and the article cited in the Wiki page itself [2] which refers to IMF as the historical name.

While certain members of the academic community may consider HMF the correct designation (for avoiding confusion as to its source), there is not an overall consensus of academics in the field preferring it over the original term. To that end, I think the Wiki page should remain neutral on the distinction, and may need to be reworded to either accommodate both terms or favor using IMF in place of HMF. TWorkmanRES (talk) 16:40, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]