User talk:Quondum

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Geometry of special relativity[edit]

hi In the WP article on absolute geometry I came accross the sentence "geometry of special relativity " so I decided to change it to geometry of special relativity , but I am no expert on relativity, (I don't even know the differennce between general and special relativity]], NO,NO I want to keep it that way :) and I could do no better than temporary make it into a redirect to spacetime.

Could you or some of the other contributors to this page let this page grow to a full article. (ps i don't know a better place to put this, please tell me where that better place is) WillemienH (talk) 10:37, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

I've changed the redirect geometry of special relativity to point to Minkowski space rather than to Spacetime; I felt that this was a more geometrically and less physics-oriented target; I hope you don't mind. Absolute geometry is already classified under Category:Classical geometry, and I can't think of anything else. Posting an invitation at WT:WPM is a possibility, but seems maybe too wide a forum to post for help on every article one is working on. Maybe it is best to just allow others working in the area to wander across it as they have time; it does not seem to me that it is worth diverting attention from other areas; there must be thousands of articles in similar need of attention. My own interest in geometry lies more in the Erlangen program rather than in synthetic geometry. —Quondum 15:46, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, you are more knoledgable than me in (any kind of) relativity, so i don't mind. But about the other point I do prefer synthetic geometry above the Erlangen program, but we can all have our own preferences :) WillemienH (talk) 18:16, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

It might have been nice to have had an article on Minkowski space from a pure geometer's perspective. However, since this is an object that physicists use, this seems unlikely. And I agree, we all have our preferences – and this makes the world a more interesting place. —Quondum 20:42, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Invitation[edit]

Dear Quondum, Please send me an email at cyberflor@aol.com I am interested in getting to know you personally. It seems we have several common interests. Thank you. -m Please forgive me if I have not left you this message correctly. I normally do not contribute to Wikipedia.73.46.237.225 (talk) 05:45, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Context needed[edit]

Hi, Quondum! I have noticed while browsing wikipedia your contribution from nuclear magnetic moment from april this year where you demanded more context for an edit regarding subadditivity or superadditivity of nuclear moments. Could you specify what could/would that be? Thanks--86.125.162.41 (talk) 19:49, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

For context, you seem to be referring to this edit (with the edit summary without more context, this is a pretty meaningless statement), where I reverted the addition of the statement struck in the following:
The nuclear magnetic moment varies from isotope to isotope of an element. Nuclear spin and magnetic moment are both always zero in a ground state (lowest energy) nucleus, if the numbers of protons and of neutrons are both even. In other cases, with odd numbers of either or both protons and neutrons, the nucleus often has spin and magnetic moment. This quantity is not the sum of magnetic moments of nucleons, in other words has no additivity property.
Leaving aside that "This quantity" is difficult to parse (but evidently refers to the nuclear magnetic moment rather than to the nuclear spin), it is unclear why this should be important (i.e. why bother to mention it), and also why additivity of magnetic moments should not hold. I can understand that orbital spin of charged particles (protons) would contribute to magnetic moments in addition to nucleon magnetic moments, but without elaboration, the statement creates far more questions than it answers. For example, if such a statement were to be made, examples of how much the magnetic moment of a nucleus with one more neutron than another differs appreciably from that of a neutron would be helpful, as well as an explanation of the difference. —Quondum 02:04, 24 August 2015 (UTC)