What Are 'M-M' and 'N-N' Circles in Russian Physics?

  • Thread starter Thread starter nomadreid
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Circles Notation
nomadreid
Gold Member
Messages
1,750
Reaction score
243
In a paper translated from the Russian, the author refers to "m-m" and "n-n" circles (including Minkowski circles) and orbits. When I first came across "n-n", I thought it was "non-negative" until I came across the "m-m". In one of the references I went to a diagram referred to, and saw an arc with "n" on each end of the arc referred to as an "n-n unit circle". I have no idea what he is talking about. Is this some standard notation I am unfamiliar with, or some notation perhaps peculiar to Russian?
In the same context, he has "m-m circles" with imaginary radii. I thought a radius was a distance, which is always real. ??
Thanks for guidance.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Can he talk about hyperboloid which is embedded in Minkowski, because hyperboloids can be thought as a sphere of imaginary radius...
 
  • Like
Likes 1 person
thanks, nomather1471. Given the context of the paper, your suggestion makes sense. I stand corrected on my impression that radii were necessarily real.
In the meantime I asked a Russian physicist, who told me that this is not standard notation in Russian either. So my guess is that it is a bad translation, and that the "m-m" is merely a reference to the hyperboloid labeled with a couple of m's in one of his diagrams.
 
I asked a question here, probably over 15 years ago on entanglement and I appreciated the thoughtful answers I received back then. The intervening years haven't made me any more knowledgeable in physics, so forgive my naïveté ! If a have a piece of paper in an area of high gravity, lets say near a black hole, and I draw a triangle on this paper and 'measure' the angles of the triangle, will they add to 180 degrees? How about if I'm looking at this paper outside of the (reasonable)...
Thread 'Relativity of simultaneity in actuality'
I’m attaching two figures from the book, Basic concepts in relativity and QT, by Resnick and Halliday. They are describing the relativity of simultaneity from a theoretical pov, which I understand. Basically, the lightning strikes at AA’ and BB’ can be deemed simultaneous either in frame S, in which case they will not be simultaneous in frame S’, and vice versa. Only in one of the frames are the two events simultaneous, but not in both, and this claim of simultaneity can be done by either of...
Back
Top