Talk:Synchrotron radiation

message: As noted by the article, synchrotron radiation was first predicted by Hannes Alfvén and Nicolai Herlofson in 1950, and subsequently confirmed by Geoffrey R. Burbidge. The reason behind such a prediction, (indeed any notable prediction), would seem to be not only non-trivial, but consistent with the scientific method.  Alfvén's reasoning then, is not just another theory, but the one which enabled him and Herlofson to successfully predict synchrotron radiation.
If "... there are a billion theories on the innumerable production methods of sync rad. in space .." why is one unverified theory left in the text? 
--Iantresman 11:26, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's not what I removed. I have no doubt he was the first to predict them existing. Its his theories in the 80's on ions in Birkeland currents and double layers that are not worth including and what I removed. Is it possible that's what's happening somewhere in the universe? yes, but its certainly not a major part of sync. radiation theory. its just a grasping attempt to validate the fringe "plasma universe" nonsense and doesn't belong here. The section which I removed in no way elucidates "Alfvén's reasoning ...which enabled him and Herlofson to successfully predict synchrotron radiation", it came decades after thier prediction which originally concerned electrons in a magnetic field, not ions in plasma currents. The first cited paper has exactly 2 (TWO!) citations since publication 20 years ago! The second has maybe a dozen and a half, the vast majority of which are plasma universe paper citations. Alfven was a fine scientist, not some all knowing god to be worshipped, stop this pov pushing. --Deglr6328 16:49, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Prediction of synchrotron radiation and reason

message: And therefore it has been removed. --ScienceApologist 21:19, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No-one said that the image of M87 shows only synchrotron radiation. But according to Geoffrey Burbidge, synchrotron radiation was first detected in M87. According to a Gemini Observatory Press Releases page, "Synchrotron Radiation, is the primary radiation that is emitted by galactic jets such as the prominent jet in M-87". The page has four images of M87 in different wavelengths. Why don't you choose the one that your feel best exemplifies M87 and the emission of synchrotron radiation. The caption I believe was both factually accurate, conforms to NPOV, and relates to M87 and synchrotron radiation. --Iantresman 22:04, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Synchrotron radiation was indeed first detected in M87, but the four wavelength-band images are not all synchrotron radiation. The image is best left for discussion at galactic jets. Why not just include the standard image of Elliptical Galaxy M87? --ScienceApologist 23:07, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I have revised the caption to direct attention to the blue jet emerging from the AGN core.  Wwheaton (talk) 16:33, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Multiband image of M87's jet does not show only synchrotron radiation

message: The section "Synchrotron radiation from storage rings" reads like a sales brochure, or a research prospectus written by someone who's enthusiastic about applications of synchrotron radiation. The article is about the physical phenomenon in general, however. One could equally well have written this section from the point of view of a particle physicist, for whom synchrotron radiation is a nuisance. There's nothing wrong with talking about applications, but it should be clear that that's what's being talked about, and it shouldn't be incongruously prominent in the article.--76.81.164.27 02:53, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: sales brochure?

message: The article lists as characteristics of synchrotron radiation:
# High brightness and high intensity, many orders of magnitude more than with X-rays produced in conventional X-ray tubes
# High brilliance, exceeding other natural and artificial light sources by many orders of magnitude
Can someone who understands the technical difference between brightness, intensity, and brilliance in this context make an attempt to translate each of these into a short phrase understandable to a layperson, as has been done here for other technical terms (e.g. high collimation, low emittance)? These three words are pretty much synonyms in ordinary daily English and even in many scientific contexts, but they are listed separately here as though they refer to three distinct characteristics. Piperh 20:20, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This issue still needs addressing, though it is now moved somewhat to the companion synchrotron light source article.  Probably a search through WikiP for articles on light, radiation transport, intensity (physics), photometry, etc should reveal careful definitions of these terms, but I have not yet done that. Wwheaton (talk) 16:51, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: What is the difference between brightness, intensity, and brilliance?

message: Skoch3 (talk) 06:09, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think not, as it is entirely different in physical origin, though there are instances (in astronomy, say) when questions arise as to the nature of some particular radiation source.  I would link as appropriate from the discussion of such cases, wherever they arise.  Wwheaton (talk) 16:45, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Bremsstrahlung radiation

message: , with some name and scope changes as laid out below. Wwheaton (talk) 16:39, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Strong Support The two are the same thing. (TimothyRias (talk) 11:06, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

text: I support the merge, but the Synchrotron light article seems to be largely about synchrotron light sources, the specialized electron accelerators use for x-ray and extreme UV materials research, etc.  How about a general article focused on the physics of synchrotron radiation, and a general one on synchrotron light sources, with a link from Particle accelerators?  Wwheaton (talk) 19:55, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

text: And now the accelerator stuff in this article largely needs to be moved over to the Synchrotron light sources article, retaining the physics and astrophysics material here.  Once that is done, the redirect from Synchrotron light to Synchrotron light sources probably needs to be switched to point here, to Synchrotron radiation. Wwheaton (talk) 20:20, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merging [[Synchrotron radiation]] with [[Synchrotron light]] 

message: I have to stop now, but the article is still a bit of a mess.  I hope it is at least a little better.  In particular it almost totally lacks any real discussion of the emission physics, spectrum, and polarization, which I think should be the core material after the lead.  Most of the section on storage rings needs to be moved to the Synchrotron light source article.  I think there should be some mention of curvature radiation in the astrophysics section at least, but will have to go back to my textbooks before I can supply it. Wwheaton (talk) 02:48, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I have done a little more, moving the "Storage rings" material to the synchrotron light source article, retaining a copy of a little of it that is relevant to the emission physics.  I have basically not removed any material from either of the two articles except for what seemed obvious duplication.  However all the references are now here, "Synchrotron light source" being completely unsourced.  Nor have I added anything except smoothing connectives and explanation to ease the flow. Anyway, others should feel free to leap in. Wwheaton (talk) 19:16, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Needs work 

message: This image http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Syncrotron_radiation_energy_flux.png seems to be a reproduction from D. H. Tomboulian and P. L. Hartman, Phys. Rev. 102 (1956) 1423. Shouldn't that be cited?
192.44.85.28 (talk) 12:07, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation Image 

message: I think the physical meaning of the critical frequency as the frequency that divides the emitted power into equal halves (from: http://xdb.lbl.gov/Section2/Sec_2-1.html), should be added. Just giving out the equation without physical meaning is not helpful.  سادىق سېتىنىياز (talk) 01:29, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Physical Meaning of the Critical Frequency 

message: The section states that SR "was first detected in a jet emitted by Messier 87 in 1956 by Geoffrey R. Burbidge". The article on Grote Reber notes (without citation) that his observations of significant low-energy radio signals did not support the (then-current) black-body radiation model. The Reber article then reads: "It was not until the 1950s that synchrotron radiation was offered as an explanation for these measurements." Since Reber was essentially the world's only radio astronomer for a decade, doing much his work in the VHF range (GHz receivers being,erm, a bit crude in the 40s), it's quite possible that the 'detection' came before even Alfven and Herlofson. Alas, I don't have access to the Reber publications, but here's a bibliography of 91 of them (20 before 1950). Some attention to Reber seems appropriate here. Twang (talk) 07:34, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  'History of Detection' and Reber  

message: This article needs to have a section on the uses and applications of synchrotron radiation.  The reader needs to be informed about X-ray crystallography, without which we would not know anything about protein-structures, and photoemission, which is essential for analysis of semiconductors and other technologically-important surfaces.  HandsomeMrToad (talk) 03:49, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Article needs an APPLICATIONS section

message: This article is still marked as start-class quality, which I believe is inappropriate given that this article is now longer, has good graphics, and contains relevant physics equations. Would anyone be willing to reevaluate this article for quality? Mooseandbruce1 (talk) 07:29, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reevaluate article quality 

message: From the text of the article: "photoelectrons ... propagate secondary electrons from the pipe walls with increasing frequency and density up to 7×10^10." 
What are the units of the density being specified? Unless I am missing some concept by which density can be a unitless quantity, there should be units specified here. Dratman (talk) 02:06, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Density? 

message: It all about bremmstralung and other emissions due to relativistic particle-particle collisions, but not about synchrotron radiation, which is due to interaction of particles with macroscopic magnetic field.
Although SR emissions of discussed objects exists and very important, they are radio emissions, they not seen on images, and not mentioned in text.Lexey73 (talk) 10:47, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section "synchrotron radiation in astronomy" completely misleading