Talk:Gyromagnetic ratio

Untitled

How atoms/particles change the ratio? is it possible? - Unsigned

Please see WP:RD to get an answer to you question =) --mboverload@ 00:22, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was PAGE MOVED - if it's good enough for the IUPAC, it's good enough for me.

Requested move

Gyromagnetic_ratio → Magnetogyric_ratio – The name "magnetogyric ratio" is that which is recommended by IUPAC - the official worldwide Chemistry body responsible for nomenclature, etc. See: http://goldbook.iupac.org/goldbook/M03693.html Wikipedia should be consistent with current usage.

This is primarily because the value is a ratio of magnetic (i.e. spin) / orbital angular momentum and not orbital / magnetic. Ctrwikipedia 09:55, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Survey

Add "* Support" or "* Oppose" followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~

Discussion

Add any additional comments

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

"Gyromagnetic" vs "Magnetogyric"

I received a note on my talk page from User:Gillen inquiring about the page move I completed above. Gillen's note:

We need to talk about this gyromagnetic ratio thing. I have never personally heard of the magnetogyric ratio until I had the unpleasant experience of looking at the Lande g factor page today. To say the least, this is disturbing. Please give me more justification for the change than simply some international chemistry reference. Physicists refer to this as gyromagnetic ratio, it appears that chemists think it is the magnetogyric ratio. I can list dozens of physics references that call this the gyromagnetic ratio....please explain to me why they are all wrong?

I'm replying here. I don't have any stake in where this page is; I completed the move because it seemed like a reasonable and cited request, and nobody had opposed after more than a week. Now someone has opposed, so I guess we should talk about it. It would be good to cite an authoritative reference citing each name, if two are in use. The article should be titled according to the most common usage, and the naming discrepancy should be discussed in the article.

All that said, I'm neither a chemist nor a physicist. The Google test gives "gyromagnetic" the edge by 301,000 to 42,100 I would tell the person who requested the move about this discussion, but the account doesn't seem to be active. I'll leave a note at Talk:IUPAC for opinions. Is there a corresponding body that standardizes physics terminology? -GTBacchus^(talk) 09:56, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

• Indeed, "magnetogyric" is never used in physics. I have never ever heard it before! Only "gyromagnetic" is used. The PDG (Particle Data Group) is an authoritative reference: http://pdg.lbl.gov/2007/reviews/g-2_s004219.html

In physics there is no question as to which word is the correct terminology, since the other one is unheard of (in my experience anyway). I suggest changing all instances of "magnetogyric" to "gyromagnetic" on this page. A note can be inserted saying "(also known as 'magnetogyric' in chemistry)". Rotiro 00:23, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

• In fact, since the current page name is "Gyromagnetic ratio" and the article acknowledges that this usage is more common, I will be bold and change all instances of "magnetogyric" to "gyromagnetic". Rotiro 00:26, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I think that's unobjectionable and long overdue. Steve 04:24, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

• Actually the best reference supporting the use of "gyromagnetic" over "magnetogyric" is probably the one already contained in the article itself - NIST, the National Institute of Standards and Technology: http://physics.nist.gov/cgi-bin/cuu/Value?eqgammae%7Csearch_for=gyromagnetic+ratio%20NIST

I disagree with the above rationale which cites IUPAC, since the gyromagnetic ratio is more a physics thing than a chemistry thing. Rotiro 00:37, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

As a chemist, we've used 'magnetogyric' but i agree gyromagnetic is more sensible, if for no other reason than the symbol used in relevant equations is gamma - as in, 'g for gyromagnetic' and not a mu as in 'm for magnetogyric'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.223.212.2 (talk) 17:26, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

As a physical chemistry researcher and lecturer for decades, I have been using "gyromagnetic ratio" simply because, represented by the Greek character gamma in NMR, it is a ratio of nuclear resonance frequency ("the gyro-frequency") to the magnetic field strength ("the magnetic strength"), but not the magnet strength to the gyric frequency. For example, the gamma for 1H nuclei is 42.5759 MHz/Tesla, which means that 1H nuclei will spin at 42.5759 MHz in a magnetic field of one Tesla. Strictly speaking, it is neither a magnetic ratio nor a gyric ratio. Perhaps it can be explicitly called the spin/magnet ratio, the frequency/magnet ratio, or the gyro/magnet ratio. A similar naming example is for the signal to noise ratio, which is widely denotes as the s/n ratio. -- Commented by Wilford Lie on 08/08/2019.

"physics references."

I couldnt find a body that standardizes physics nomenclature, but I did send you some references. And posted them on your talk page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gillen (talk • contribs) 22:22, November 15, 2006 (UTC)

Copied from my talk page:

There are literally thousands of papers that clearly and unambiguously indicate that Lande g-factor/g factor/ gyromagnetic ratio are all synonyms for the same thing. I am including a reference from an old paper that will clearly indicate this.

Rev. Mod. Phys. 34, 102–109 (1962) [Issue 1 – January 1962 ]

It is also clearly illustrated in Griffiths "Quantum Mechanics", as well as in Claude Cohen-Tannoudji's "Quantum Mechanics". FYI - Tannoudji is a Nobel Laureate and Griffiths is the most used undergraduate text that I know of. User:140.247.248.124

I've copied the reference information here so it can be worked into the article. I would say the first task is to include in the article discussion of the fact that two names are in common use by different sciences, and if it seems appropriate, we can always move the page back at some point, if it turns out that we find one spelling to be much more common than the other, preferably based on something surer than the "google test". -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:53, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Inconsistency with Larmor frequency page: "also known as Lange G-factor"?

This page indicates that the magnetogyric ratio is also known as the Lange G-factor. However, there are important factors that distinguish the two. On the Larmor frequency page, they are defined as proportional, with some important dimensionful factors. I'm inclined to believe the equation on the Larmor frequency page, as the equation makes sense unitwise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.64.37.157 (talk • contribs) 19:00, November 20, 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore, I believe it's inaccurate to say the magnietogyric ratio is a "unitless quantity" that gives the ratio between the two moments. When used in the context of the Larmor frequency and energy of nuclear spin excitations, it clearly has dimensions of Teslas/second. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.64.37.157 (talk • contribs) 19:02, November 20, 2006 (UTC)

These were fixed when I rewrote the page some time ago. Steve 04:24, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

The sign of the gyromagnetic ratio

How about the sign the gyromagnetic ratio?

I would like to add that the gyromagnetic ratio (or magnetogyric ratio) of the free electron is - 1.7608... * 10^11 s^-1 * T^-1 and that the gyromagnetic ratio (or magnetogyric ratio) of the proton is 2.6752... * 10^8 s^-1 * T^-1. The opposite signs is convenient when using:

\mu_e = \gamma_e M_s h/(2\pi)

which explains why the magnetic moment of the electron is antiparallell to its spin angular momentum. Agree?

Hakgu (talk) 16:20, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

This page says the electron gyromagnetic ratio is positive. Do other sources say otherwise? --Steve (talk) 18:25, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

A negative electron gyromagnetic ratio can be found for instance in: page 578 in the book "Electron Paramagnetic Resonance" by Weil and Bolton (Weily 2007)

and on page 207 (equation 9) in "Molecular Quantum Mechanics" by Atkins and Friedman (Oxford 2000):

γ_e = - e/(2*m_e)

indicating a negative sign.

For the moment I could not find a more available reference... 130.236.195.52 (talk) 12:12, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

OK, that's good. It should be negative to be consistent with the formula and with the nuclear values. I guess NIST figured the sign went without saying...? Anyway, I agree we should change it. --Steve (talk) 19:01, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Done. Look OK? --Steve (talk) 19:23, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Gyromagnetic ratio

The article says the experimetal value of g_e, that it is in excellent agreement with the theoretical value...but doesn´t say which one is it. Also, the radian is not a SI unit.--190.190.87.136 (talk) 17:09, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Experimental...I'll make that clearer. The radian is considered a "derived unit" within SI, see radian. It would be good to have a reference for the units of g though... --Steve (talk) 23:13, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Mathias 29 June, 2011: Regarding the unit: It looks like the "rad" is not really apart of the unit or what? If you simply calculated the ratio (electron change)/(electron mass), then you get the value (up to fine structure corrections) stated in the end of the section "Gyromagnetic ratio for an isolated electron". So what is the "rad" unit doing there?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.244.101.168 (talk) 16:58, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Axis of symmetry

The text reads: "Consider a charged body rotating around an axis of symmetry". But just one body rotating around any axix except its own is not rotating about an axis of symmetry. It would be if there were two identical bodies rotating about an axis that goes through the point halfway the two bodies. But with just one body, it does not sound very logical, because you obviously are not referring to the body rotating around its OWN axis. Therefore, I propose to change the sentence into: "Consider a charged body rotating around a point outside that body".Jordaan12 (talk) 17:05, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

The text is referring to the body's own axis. How about: "Consider a charged body with an axis of symmetry, spinning around that axis"? Is that clearer? Any other suggestion? --Steve (talk) 21:02, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Serious Misconception

The article says that the correct gyromagnetic factor from "relativistic QM" is 2 + QFT Correactions, while in "classical physics" one would expect this factor to be equal to 1. This is absolutely false. The factor 2 can be obtained from the linearization of both, the classical Schrodinger equation and the relativistic Klein-Gordon equation. Both lead to a 4-spinor, and both linearizations predict the correct gyromagnetic factor to be equal to 2; So the factor 2 is actually a consequence of the dependence of the wave equation on the first (and not the second) derivative with respect to time. So relativity has nothing to do with it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fernando.Martin.Maroto (talk • contribs) 17:24, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Do you have published references for that? If you do, feel free to edit the article yourself. Krashlandon ^(talk) 17:32, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes. See for example the QM textbook from Walter Greiner. He has a detailed workout of the linearized Schrodinger equation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fernando.Martin.Maroto (talk • contribs) 17:48, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Confusion/error in bottom figure

I note that the bottom figure, illustrating the two directions of precession, has a confusion or error. Namely, the arrows that are precessing are the spin vectors, not magnetic moment. Yet those arrows are labeled with north and south poles. The magnetic moment itself precesses the same direction, irrespective of the sign of gamma - its just the magnetic moment. It is the spin that precesses either way, depending on the sign of gamma. Bdushaw (talk) 12:06, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

How so? The spin and magnetic moment vectors are either oriented in the same direction or oppositely, depending on the sign of the gyromagnetic ratio, and precess together (i.e. in the same direction around the magnetic field) for any given nucleus. The direction of precessing is determined by whether the sign of gamma, because it determines the sign of the torque on the gyroscopic spin. The precessions in the diagram are correctly opposite. —Quondum 01:55, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Ah! I see my mistake. The magnetic moments of both sides are the same, but the spins have different signs. Nevermind, except the caption may be clearer in this regard. I would say it differently in this case - the torques on the magnetic moments from the magnetic field are the same in both cases of gamma (the mu's are oriented the same direction, torque is mu-cross-B), but the spins are in opposite directions, so they precess in opposite directions. ("Learning is like simulated annealing. Sometimes we get in local minima of understanding.") Bdushaw (talk) 02:13, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

I've tried to modify the caption to correct how I got confused... Many references, e.g. Shankar Q.M., describe pressesion using the angular momentum vector, rather than magnetic moment. One must pay attention... Bdushaw (talk) 02:20, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Off-topic, but the following thought occurred to me: are there any nuclei with zero spin, but with a nonzero magnetic moment? For example, deuterium in an excited state (neutron and proton spins antiparallel) might have zero spin, but the unmatched magnetic moments would not cancel. —Quondum 03:02, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't know - does Helium-4 have a small magnetic moment? I find nothing about that by google search. Bdushaw (talk) 03:23, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

I expect it to be exactly zero (due to symmetry: two antiparallel protons, two antiparallel neutrons), though new physics might change this. Candidates would be odd-odd nuclei, but as the link indicates, no stable or short-lived isotopes of this type have zero spin. —Quondum 04:15, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Gyromagnetic ratio. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051015150620/http://parthe.lpthe.jussieu.fr/poincare/textes/octobre2002/Knecht.ps to http://parthe.lpthe.jussieu.fr/poincare/textes/octobre2002/Knecht.ps

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:37, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Reference 18 is linked wrongly

Reference 18 is the same as reference 21. The given value is correct, but the source of Reference 18 has to be "https://physics.nist.gov/cgi-bin/cuu/Value?gammappbar". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:ce:7f1f:6900:8849:272c:bd70:2e (talk) 10:22, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Fixed. Thanks for catching it and reporting! DMacks (talk) 14:06, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

different but closely related quantity

This seems misleading. As well as I know, they are exactly the same quantity, but with different units. More specifically, exactly the same physics. If I am wrong, if the physics is different, then fine. For the most part, we don't have separate articles for the same quantity but in different unit systems. Note, for example, that magnetic field includes both B and H, and we also don't have separate articles for tesla and gauss. Gah4 (talk) 20:32, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

@Gah4: maybe that's not a bad idea. You could start a WP:Merge request.--ReyHahn (talk) 10:39, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Merge proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

To not merge, as readers are best served by having these closely-related topics discussed separately. Klbrain (talk) 08:03, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

---

I propose merging G-factor (physics) with this page, Gyromagnetic ratio. The two are actually the same thing but with different units. That is, it is exactly the same physics. For the most part, we don't have separate articles for the same quantity but in different unit systems. Note, for example, that magnetic field includes both B and H, and we also don't have separate articles for tesla and gauss. (There are articles for the unit itself, but not separate articles for magnetic fields measured in tesla and gauss.) Gah4 (talk) 07:21, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

• Merge "G-factor" into "Gyromagnetic ratio", I would keep Gyromagnetic ratio as title as it is the most general term.--ReyHahn (talk) 13:36, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

That sounds fine to me. There will be a redirect either way, though. Gah4 (talk) 23:30, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

• Comment – The statement "The two are actually the same thing but with different units" is incorrect. They are merely (proportionally) corresponding quantities, not the same quantity. I would not be opposed to this being merged as a description of the g-factor that is sensitive to the distinction in a section of Gyromagnetic ratio. 172.82.47.242 (talk) 00:18, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
• Comment - Just to be sure, as I am only 99% sure, we are talking about the same physics but with different units. In special relativity, it is common to give velocities in units of c, such that they are dimensionless. Then beta is commonly used, though that page doesn't mention it. My favorite quantity with surprising units is Specific impulse. It is commonly described in terms of the thrust of a (rocket or jet) engine divided by the weight is the fuel and oxidizer (for rocket), or fuel (jet engine) per second used to produce that thrust. More specifically, it is divided by the mass multiplied by standard gravity. There is no physical reason to do this, especially in the case of rockets not near earth, but only for unit convenience. That is, the same quantity in English or metric units. But yes, the combined article needs to explain the way the units are defined for G-factor (physics) and the reason for that definition. Tesla and gauss are similarly different, as the way they are defined are different in SI and Gaussian unit systems, but as you note merely proportional. There are not separate articles for Specific impulse in seconds, or Newtons per kilogram second, or pound (force) per pound (mass) second, being merely proportional. Gah4 (talk) 11:31, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

  Agreed: I think it is the same physics, and separating an article based only on systems of quantities is not warranted. There may be differences of material due to the differences where each version is typically used. The material on specific particles might belong in more specific articles, though, such as Landé g-factor and Muon g − 2 – 172.82.47.242 (talk) 19:53, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

• Afterthought: Just be aware that while this works for baryons and nuclei, Dirac particles are a bit different. Here we don't have a "unit" (μ_B): the actual particle's mass is used. I wish they had not used the same term, because they are not the same thing. This is a bit like conflating density and mass under one name. 172.82.47.242 (talk) 20:18, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose. They are not the same thing. g factor gives the energy splitting when a magnetic field is applied, Gyromagnetic ratio gives the ratio of angular momentum to magnetic moment of a system. For complex coupled systems like ions (for example rare earth ions), molecules and nuclei they may not be the same. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:43, 23 August 2022 (UTC).

• Comment - Neither article mentions systems like ions or molecules. Nuclei consistently use the nuclear magneton instead of the Bohr magneton. And Landé g-factor has its own article. If rare-earth ions should be mentioned, the merged article can explain the differences. Or maybe they should have their own article.

• Comment - OK, I am not in a rush to do this, unless someone else wants to do it. I will be sure to take into account the above, and ask if there are any questions. Gah4 (talk) 02:08, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

If you claim that they are the same thing, then produce a reliable source that says so. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:33, 23 August 2022 (UTC).

There are plenty of sources that use them interchangeably in the same sentence. That would not make sense if they were not sufficiently similar. There is some discussion on sign, as it seems that the definition of the sign can be different. This one, this one, this one, this one, and this one use them in the same sense. As above, Landé g-factor is different, and has its own article. Gah4 (talk) 20:15, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

The minor and obscure sources that you cite do not support your claim that the G-factor (physics) and Gyromagnetic ratio mean the same. Please produce quotes from a physics monograph of authoritative and major stature, comparable to the Landau and Lifshitz series, that support your claim. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:39, 1 September 2022 (UTC).

I do not think that producing sources that state that the two things are the same is helpful here. That's not the proposal of this merge. The two are not strictly the same. The proposal seems to be to merge them into a single article as the two are aspect of the same concept. H and B are not the same and are found in a single Wikipedia article.--ReyHahn (talk) 08:10, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

The analogy is false. H and B are two descriptions of the same electromagnetic field, not of different fields. Anyway, this discussion of editors’ opinions, whatever its misconceptions, is not suitable for a Wikipedia page. The items needed to implement a change on Wikipedia are authoritative reliable sources acknowledged by community, that support the change. There is an extensive literature on the quantum mechanics of angular momentum and sources can be found there. Sources are what Wikipedia editors are expected to provide; please may we have them, or the proposal should proceed no further? Xxanthippe (talk) 06:32, 2 September 2022 (UTC).

Find a WP:RS that says that H and B are the same, and I will find one for these. Gah4 (talk) 10:01, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

First I thought there would be no articles suggesting that they are the same, or similar. No organizations give grants for someone to figure out such things. I believe the ones I found, though, are enough to convince me. Gah4 (talk) 09:53, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Here is a relevant source: Modern Quantum Mechanics (Sakurai) clearly says that Dirac particles have "gyromagnetic ratio=2". So even good books can conflate the two. Another good one is Michael Coey's book on magnetism. In the chapter of orbital moment he expressed the electron magnetic moment using the g-factor and the gyromagnetic ratio and saying that both are alternatives way of expressing the same thing. I could go on with more books, but as said before the point is not to prove that the two concepts are identical but to discuss them in the same article.--ReyHahn (talk) 12:27, 2 September 2022 (UTC)--ReyHahn (talk) 12:22, 2 September 2022 (UTC)--ReyHahn (talk) 12:06, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Not to mention that the gyromagnetic ratio article already says, quote: The term "gyromagnetic ratio" is often used[2] as a synonym for a different but closely related quantity, the g-factor. The g-factor, unlike the gyromagnetic ratio, is dimensionless. citing Tipler's book.--ReyHahn (talk) 12:31, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

OK, here is the problem, and this is reminding me that I mostly didn't think WP:SYNTH applies to physical sciences. I can read that two ways. One suggests: ... is often used, mistakenly, as a synonym for a different quantity. The other is: The g-factor differs only from the gyromagnetic ratio in being dimensionless. (And as I said earlier, there is the Landé g-factor, which they can be confused with, and which is actually different.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gah4 (talk • contribs) 17:32, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

• Don't merge. Sievert and Roentgen equivalent man have different pages despite being the exact same thing differentiated by a factor of 100. This is warranted to a degree due to their differing histories and slightly differing usages. That's just one example, but I think that Gyromagnetic ratio and G-factor (physics) differ enough in usage to warrant separate pages; the former has a significant slant towards application (why are there several quantities given on this page in MHz⋅T^-1 and none in C·kg^-1? I would hazard a guess that it is because the former is used in spectroscopy.) The pages could be merged, but it would require a partial tonal rewrite. More to the point, though, merging pages with significantly differing target audiences may lead to difficulties for readers in obtaining information from the article. WP:NOTTEXTBOOK is routinely flouted by mathematics and science articles on this site already; a particularly egregious example is Addition, where the simplest possible mathematical operation in existence has an article lead containing several mathematical terms that are commonly not encountered until undergraduate-level courses. Merging these two articles would not result in nearly as dire of a situation, but it's also a less necessary decision; elementary schoolers and mathematicians both will search for the word "addition" when interested in the concept. By contrast, spectroscopists will commonly search for "gyromagnetic ratio" and theorists for "g-factor"; while both articles contain useful information about the overall concept that either audience might be interested in knowing in the general sense, the specific content that either is searching for is likely to differ in a consistent fashion depending on the term used. I am willing to budge on this given examples of the consistent interchangeable use of these terms within a subdiscipline (i.e. not just pointing out that they are the same and then using a single one for the rest of the source) but as of right now, my opinion is that though technically being the same concept physically, they are not the same subject. At the extremes, merging all articles about representations of the same physical concept would result in the merger of Energy, Temperature, and Frequency. NuclearOverhauserEffect (talk) 09:46, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Including Radians

I believe "Its SI unit is the radian per second per tesla (rad⋅s−1⋅T−1) or, equivalently, the coulomb per kilogram (C⋅kg−1)." is incorrect. You can't just get rid of the radians unit. You could say it's equivalent to (rad⋅C⋅kg−1). 152.23.189.61 (talk) 22:26, 20 October 2024 (UTC)