Talk:Stark effect

message: give the details of stark effect—Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.176.248.70 (talk • contribs) 
:Splendid idea. Unfortunately, I don't understand the details of Stark Effect. Do you perhaps? Anyone can contribute of course! Oh, and next time, please sign your comments with four tildes: ~~~~. We can then see who is giving the comment. The result is somewhat like this: Gerritholl 20:05, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Unless someone beats me to it, I'll write up what the effect is.  I'll just add it to the bottom of my to do list...  Laura Scudder 01:26, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Details 

message: *Could somebody provide a source for the following sentence (which I temporarily commented out):
:While first-order perturbation effects for the Stark effect in hydrogen are in agreement for the Bohr-Sommerfeld  model and the quantum-mechanical theory of the atom, higher order effects are not. Measurements of the Stark effect under high field strengths confirmed the correctness of the quantum theory over the Bohr model.
*I do not have easy access to Z. f. Physik (1920). Whitaker gives p. 199 for Kramer's 1920 paper. Earlier author of this article gives p. 169. Who is right? 
--P.wormer 15:47, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: * I got the answer for the 2nd question from the national Dutch public library helpdesk (al@din): it is page 199. Thank you al@din! --P.wormer 13:52, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  History Stark effect 

message: The article states: "Coincidentally, both physicists, Stark and Lo Surdo, later became ardent followers of the dictators (Hitler and Mussolini) ruling their respective countries."
How is this in any way significant or relevant? It seems totally out of place to me.
:Agreed.  — Laura Scudder ☎ 21:01, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: * I wrote this sentence assuming that human interest is not forbidden, not even in science. In  science history there is an eternal struggle on how to divide attention between the works and the personalities of scientists. To me a sentence of 20 words not directly science related  in an otherwise completely technical article is not overstretching the personal. But, indeed, the Johannes Stark lemma has already a paragraph about Stark's political ideas. So, when Antonino Lo Surdo gets an article that mentions (however briefly) his political ideas, then the sentence can go from the present article. Until then I am in favor of reentering the sentence.--P.wormer 08:31, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trivia 

message: Christovac changed a sentence of mine to:
:Kramers also included the effect of fine structure, by which, before the discovery of spin in 1926, was the relativistic increase of electron mass with velocity.
In the original version of this sentence I wanted to express the fact that after 1926
the term "fine structure" related to spin effects. Around 1919 by "fine structure" one meant [is this bad grammar?] the relativistic effect of increase in mass. Is there a stylistic expert in the Wiki-room that can put this sentence straight? Now it is rambling. Thank you.--P.wormer 07:45, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  fine structure 

message: Is the Stark effect etc related to Electric field NMR?
If so please edit that stub article, and add references from this and related articles.
I know nothing about it. GilesW (talk) 19:48, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's barely related. Evgeny (talk) 13:49, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question about Electric Field NMR