Talk:Cyclotron resonance

The content of the article before the "See also" section was copied from Cyclotron; see that article's history for attribution. BR84 (talk) 00:19, 19 December 2011 (UTC) In the last edit, i used (rewrote) two formulae from the Cyclotron article, again see this article for attribution. BR84 (talk) 18:18, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect/Examples

I think a redirect from searches for "cyclotron motion" would be useful (I don't know how to do this). Also, perhaps a section on examples of cyclotron motion in the world, such as Penning traps or the Aurora Borealis (or at least links to the appropriate articles) would be enlightening. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.90.84.161 (talk) 18:57, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relativity

The formula is only valid for low energies compared to the rest mass of an accelerated particle. It might make sense to add a section on relativistic cases. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.70.80.5 (talk) 11:15, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The H ~B is confusing

So the H approximately equals H is confusing since it does not state what H means 213.67.3.6 (talk) 11:20, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously it should say "H approximately equals B" 213.67.3.6 (talk) 11:21, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've added an explanatory link for H, is that better now? Perfi (talk) 12:12, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge proposal

I propose merging Gyroradius into Cyclotron resonance. I think the content in Gyroradius can better be explained in the context of Cyclotron resonance together with Gyrofrequency/Cyclotron frequency (which already redirect to Cyclotron resonance). CoronalMassAffection (talk) 20:44, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree strongly, and would suggest the opposite. Gyroradius is a fundamental quantity in many branches of physics, including plasmas and space science, where cyclotron resonance and related phenomena may be relevant only in very specific circumstances, but the radius/frequency are *always* relevant. In reality, such resonances with gyrating particles are a result of the existence of gyroradius/frequency, not vice versa. Mrkinzie (talk) 23:16, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mrkinzie. I am very much aware that the gyroradius and gyrofrequency are relevant outside of the context of cyclotron resonance, and in hindsight I agree that it makes more sense to merge Cyclotron resonance into Gyroradius rather than vice versa. This was a poorly thought out proposal. I will change the tags to reflect the new proposed merge destination. Additionally, since the cyclotron resonance article in its current state does not explain or even mention cyclotron resonance outside of the lead, it should be converted to a disambiguation page for the Ion cyclotron resonance and Electron cyclotron resonance articles if this merge is accepted. CoronalMassAffection (talk) 22:15, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, but use the name of the effect, cyclotron motion, as the title instead of singling out one the related quantities. This would allow the introduction to start naturally from a qualitative description. Confusingly, cyclotron motion currently redirects to ion cyclotron resonance, although it is not restricted to ions. I have to admit that I would not even recognize the phenomenon from the title "gyroradius". I checked some textbooks in my shelf and 'cyclotron frequency' and 'Larmor/cyclotron radius' seem to be common names in the field of theoretical condensed matter physics. But this is probably a field-dependent thing, as according to Ngram data, Larmor radius is only slightly more common than gyroradius. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 08:57, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]