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

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter nomadreid
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Circles Notation
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the terms "m-m" and "n-n" circles as referenced in a translated Russian physics paper. The author initially misinterpreted "n-n" as "non-negative" but later identified it as an "n-n unit circle" associated with Minkowski geometry. The term "m-m circles" was noted to involve imaginary radii, challenging the conventional understanding of radius as a real distance. A Russian physicist confirmed that this notation is not standard in Russian physics, suggesting that it may stem from a poor translation.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of Minkowski geometry
  • Familiarity with hyperboloids in physics
  • Knowledge of complex numbers and imaginary numbers
  • Basic concepts of unit circles in mathematics
NEXT STEPS
  • Research Minkowski space and its applications in physics
  • Study the properties of hyperboloids and their geometric significance
  • Explore the concept of imaginary numbers in mathematical contexts
  • Investigate standard notations used in Russian physics literature
USEFUL FOR

Physicists, mathematicians, and students interested in advanced geometry, particularly those exploring concepts in relativity and complex number applications in physics.

nomadreid
Gold Member
Messages
1,773
Reaction score
256
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   Reactions: 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.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
4K
  • · Replies 42 ·
2
Replies
42
Views
8K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
6K
Replies
4
Views
7K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K